@article{ref1,
title="The impact of multiple show-ups on eyewitness decision-making and innocence risk",
journal="Journal of experimental psychology: applied",
year="2014",
author="Smith, Andrew M. and Bertrand, Michelle and Lindsay, Rod C. L. and Kalmet, Natalie and Grossman, Deborah and Provenzano, Daniel",
volume="20",
number="3",
pages="247-259",
abstract="If an eyewitness rejects a show-up, police may respond by finding a new suspect and conducting a second show-up with the same eyewitness. Police may continue finding suspects and conducting show-ups until the eyewitness makes an identification (Study 1). Relatively low criterion-setting eyewitnesses filter themselves out of the multiple show-ups procedure by choosing the first suspect with whom they are presented (Studies 2 and 3). Accordingly, response bias was more stringent on the second show-up when compared with the first, but became no more stringent with additional show-ups. Despite this stringent shift in response bias, innocence risk increased with additional show-ups, as false alarms cumulate (Studies 2 and 3). Although unbiased show-up instructions decreased innocent suspect identifications, the numbers were still discouraging (Study 4). Given the high number of innocent suspects who would be mistakenly identified through the use of multiple show-up procedures, using such identifications as evidence of guilt is questionable. Although evidence of guilt is limited to identifications from a single show-up, practical constraints might sometimes require police to use additional show-ups. Accordingly, we propose a stronger partition between evidentiary and investigative procedures. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2014 APA, all rights reserved).<p /> <p>Language: en</p>",
language="en",
issn="1076-898X",
doi="10.1037/xap0000018",
url="http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/xap0000018"
}