Comparison of the efficacy of two name-learning techniques: expanding rehearsal and name-face imagery.

Two name-learning techniques were compared: expanding rehearsal and name-face imagery. Participants studied name-face associations and were given a cued recall test in which they were presented with a face and were to recall the name. They were presented with either an expanding rehearsal schedule (expanding condition), a distinctive facial feature coupled with a word phonologically similar to the last name and an interactive image linking the name and facial feature (name-face imagery condition), or a no memory (control) strategy. The expanding rehearsal schedule led to superior name learning relative to the name-face imagery and control conditions after a 15-min (Experiment 1) or 48-hr (Experiment 2) retention interval. In Experiment 3, the retrieval practice explanation was tested but not supported; we argue that an encoding variability interpretation is consistent with the overall pattern of results. Applied implications are also discussed.

The effects of accomplice witnesses and jailhouse informants on jury decision making.

The present study presents one of the first investigations of the effects of accomplice witnesses and jailhouse informants on jury decision-making. Across two experiments, participants read a trial transcript that included either a secondary confession from an accomplice witness, a jailhouse informant, a member of the community or a no confession control. In half of the experimental trial transcripts, the participants were made aware that the cooperating witness providing the secondary confession was given an incentive to testify. The results of both experiments revealed that information about the cooperating witness' incentive (e.g., leniency or reward) did not affect participants' verdict decisions. In Experiment 2, participant jurors appeared to commit the fundamental attribution error, as they attributed the motivation of the accomplice witness and jailhouse informant almost exclusively to personal factors as opposed to situational factors. Furthermore, both experiments revealed that mock jurors voted guilty significantly more often when there was a confession relative to a no confession control condition. The implications of the use of accomplice witness and jailhouse informant testimony are discussed.

The mitigating effects of suspicion on post-identification feedback and on retrospective eyewitness memory.

Three studies examined procedures for reducing the post-identification feedback effect. After viewing a video event, participants were then asked to identify a suspect from a target-absent photo lineup. After making their identification, some participants were given information suggesting that their identification was correct, while others were given no information about the accuracy of their identification. Some participants who received confirming feedback were also given reasons to entertain suspicion regarding the motives of the lineup administrator, either immediately (Experiment 1) or after a one-week retention interval (Experiment 2). Suspicious perceivers failed to demonstrate the confidence inflation effects typically associated with confirming post-identification feedback. In Experiment 3, the confidence prophylactic effect was tested both immediately and after a one-week retention interval. The effect of confidence prophylactic varied with retention interval such that it eliminated the effects of post-identification feedback immediately but not after a retention interval. However, the suspicion manipulation eliminated the post-identification feedback effects at both time intervals. Both theoretical and practical implications are discussed.