Abstract
The importance of realism in eyewitness identification research is examined as the basis for both the credibility and utility of the information it provides. Without knowledge of how laboratory eyewitnesses behave differently from real eyewitnesses, the relevance and external validity of identification studies may be questioned. Factors differentiating these identification contexts are discussed. Witnesses in identification studies are in social decision-making contexts similar to those of real eyewitnesses when their decision to choose someone or to reject the lineup may have a significant impact on others' lives. Two studies are reported which preserve aspects of realism. Both presented witnesses with a realistic vandalism. The second maintained realism through the identification situation. The first study demonstrated effects of biased instructions on witnesses' willingness to make a lineup choice and on identification errors (with the offender present and absent). The second study showed an unexpected preference of witnesses for making an identification when the supposed consequences for the suspect were to be severe. To evaluate the generalizability and utility of laboratory studies it is important to determine whether their results and related theoretical analyses survive the transposition to more realistic contexts. Realistic studies should serve as benchmarks against which simulations are compared and their generalizability evaluated.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References Notes
Hall, D.F., & Ostrom, T.M.Accuracy of eyewitness identification after biasing or unbiased instructions. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Chicago, August, 1975.
Malpass, R.S., Devine, P.G., & Bergen, G.T.Eyewitness identification: realism vs the laboratory. State University of New York, Plattsburgh, Behavioral Science Program, 1980.
References
Bray, R.M., & Kerr, N.L. Use of the simulation method in the study of jury behavior: Some methodological considerations.Law and Human Behavior, 1979,3, 107–119.
Brown, E., Deffenbacher, K., & Sturgill, W.. Memory for faces and the circumstances of encounter.Journal of Applied Psychology, 1977,62, 311–318.
Buckhout, R., Figueroa, D., & Hoff, E. Eyewitness identification: Effects of suggestion and biasing in identification from photographs.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society 1975,6, 71–74.
Clifford, B.R., & Bull, R.The Psychology of Person Identification. London: Routledge & Kegan, Paul, 1978.
Davies, G., Shepherd, J., & Ellis, H. Effects of interpolated mugshot exposure on accuracy of eyewitness identification.Journal of Applied Psychology, 1979,64, 232–237.
Doob, A.N., & Kirshenbaum, H.M. Bias in police lineups—partial remembering.Journal of Police Science and Administration, 1973,I, 287–293.
Egan, D., Pittner, M., & Goldstein, A.G., Eyewitness identification—photographs vs. live models.Law and Human Behavior, 1977,1, 199–206.
Langer, E.J., & Abelson, R.P. The semantics of asking a favor: How to succeed in getting help without really dying.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1972,24, 26–32.
Leippe, M.R., Wells, G.L., & Ostrom, T.M. Crime seriousness as a determinant of accuracy in eyewitness identification.Journal of Applied Psychology, 1978,63, 345–351.
Levine, F.J., & Tapp, J.L. The psychology of criminal identification: The gap fromWade toKirby.University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 1973,121, 1079–1131.
Lindsay, R.C.L., Wells, G.L., & Rumpel, C.M. Juror's detection of eyewitness identification accuracy within and across situations.Journal of Applied Psychology, 1981,66, 79–89.
Loftus, E.F. Reconstructing memory—the incredible eyewitness.Jurimetrics Journal, 1975a,15, 188–193.
Loftus, E.F. Leading questions and the eyewitness report.Cognitive Psychology, 1975b,7, 560–572.
Loftus, E.F. Unconscious transference in eyewitness identification.Law and Psychology Review, 1976,2, 93–98.
Loftus, E.F.Eyewitness Testimony. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1979.
Loftus, E.F. Impact of expert testimony on the unreliability of eyewitness testimony.Journal of Applied Psychology, 1980,65, 9–15.
Malpass, R.S., & Devine, P.G. Eyewitness identification: Lineup instructions and absence of the offender.Journal of Applied Psychology, 1981(a).
Malpass, R.S. & Devine, P.G. Guided memory in eyewitness identification.Journal of Applied Psychology, 1981(a).
Powers, P.A., Andriks, J.L., & Loftus, E.F. Eyewitness accounts of females & males.Journal of Applied Psychology, 1979,64, 339–347.
Wells, G.L. Applied eyewitness-testimony research: System variables and estimator variables.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1978,36, 1546–1557.
Wells, G.L., Leippe, M.R., & Ostrom, T.M. Guidelines for empirically assessing the fairness of a lineup.Law and Human Behavior, 1979,3, 285–293.
Wells, G.L., Lindsay, R.C.L., & Ferguson, T.J. Accuracy, confidence, and juror perceptions in eyewitness identification.Journal of Applied Psychology, 1979,64, 440–448.
Woocher, F.D. Did your eyes deceive you? Expert psychological testimony on the unreliability of eyewitness identification.Stanford Law Review, 1977,29, 969–1030.
Yarmey, A.D.The Psychology of Eyewitness Testimony. New York: The Free Press, 1979.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
The preparation of this article was facilitated by a Faculty Research Fellowship and Grant-in-Aid from the Research Foundation of the State University of New York to R.S. Malpass. We would like to thank Professor Neil Brooks for his helpful comments on an earlier version of the manuscript. Reprint requests should be addressed to R.S. Malpass, Behavioral Science Program, SUNY College of Arts & Science, Plattsburgh, New York 12901 U.S.A.
About this article
Cite this article
Malpass, R.S., Devine, P.G. Realism and eyewitness identification research. Law Hum Behav 4, 347–358 (1980). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01040626
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01040626