Unconscious Unconscious TransferenceTransference

Dwight J. PetersonDwight J. Peterson

Eyewitness Identification SeminarEyewitness Identification Seminar

University of Northern IowaUniversity of Northern Iowa

Unconscious TransferenceUnconscious Transference

Definition:Definition: Identifying a innocent foil, who is familiar from Identifying a innocent foil, who is familiar from

some context, instead of the actual some context, instead of the actual perpetratorperpetrator

Different from identifying any old foil face Different from identifying any old foil face from the lineup?from the lineup? Unfortunately, yes, this phenomenon presents Unfortunately, yes, this phenomenon presents

yet another problem with eyewitness ID’syet another problem with eyewitness ID’s

Transference EffectTransference Effect

I see Joe steal a carI see Joe steal a car Police show upPolice show up I am the witness to the crimeI am the witness to the crime Cops have no one in custodyCops have no one in custody I see Tom while flipping through a I see Tom while flipping through a

mugshot book at the police stationmugshot book at the police station Later on, I’m given the following lineup:Later on, I’m given the following lineup:

Joe

Tom

Transference EffectTransference Effect What happens if I pick number 4?What happens if I pick number 4? What happens if number 4 (Tom) has two What happens if number 4 (Tom) has two

priors for grand theft auto?priors for grand theft auto?

HistoryHistory

Glanville Williams (1955)Glanville Williams (1955) Coined the termCoined the term

Houts (1956)Houts (1956) The sailor and the ticket agentThe sailor and the ticket agent

Elizabeth Loftus (1976)Elizabeth Loftus (1976) Pioneer study of the UT effectPioneer study of the UT effect TA lineup: 60% chose previously viewed “bystander”TA lineup: 60% chose previously viewed “bystander”

Thompson (1988)Thompson (1988) Rape victim confusion related to source of familiarityRape victim confusion related to source of familiarity

Associated ProblemsAssociated Problems

Mugshot booksMugshot books Different context, but familiarity remainsDifferent context, but familiarity remains Lineups after mugshots = increased Lineups after mugshots = increased

probability for misidentificationprobability for misidentification Innocent bystandersInnocent bystanders

Same context, retrieve and identify innocent Same context, retrieve and identify innocent face from lineupface from lineup

TheoriesTheories

Source monitoring errorsSource monitoring errors Distinguishing between memory sourcesDistinguishing between memory sources

Automatic processingAutomatic processing Implicit MemoryImplicit Memory

Infer identity at encoding or retrievalInfer identity at encoding or retrieval ““Conscious Inference”Conscious Inference”

• Read et al., (1990)Read et al., (1990)

Source MonitoringSource Monitoring

External External Based on sensory experience and subsequent Based on sensory experience and subsequent

perceptionperception InternalInternal

Based on thoughts, feelingsBased on thoughts, feelings Easier to distinguish between one internal and Easier to distinguish between one internal and

one external memoryone external memory Reality Monitoring: Harder to distinguish Reality Monitoring: Harder to distinguish

between two external (or two internal) memoriesbetween two external (or two internal) memories Lindsay & Johnson (1989)Lindsay & Johnson (1989)

Automatic ProcessesAutomatic Processes

Remembering old non-famous names as Remembering old non-famous names as famousfamous

Jacoby, Kelly, Brown, & Jasechko (1989)Jacoby, Kelly, Brown, & Jasechko (1989)

Familiarity without recognitionFamiliarity without recognition Jacoby, Woloshyn, & Kelley (1989)Jacoby, Woloshyn, & Kelley (1989)

Automatic processing of faces may lead to Automatic processing of faces may lead to familiarity without conscious attention to familiarity without conscious attention to features necessary for differentiationfeatures necessary for differentiation

Conscious InferenceConscious Inference

RetrievalRetrieval Bystander does not come into play until the Bystander does not come into play until the

lineup is presentedlineup is presented Read et al., (1990)Read et al., (1990)

EncodingEncoding Ross et al., (1994)Ross et al., (1994)

Erroneously thinking the bystander is the Erroneously thinking the bystander is the assailant while encoding the crime, and assailant while encoding the crime, and later thinking they are one in the samelater thinking they are one in the same

Differentiating Between Bystander Differentiating Between Bystander and Perpetratorand Perpetrator

One in the same?One in the same? TA-lineups increase transferenceTA-lineups increase transference Lineups with BOTH the bystander and Lineups with BOTH the bystander and

perpetrator cause a different type of trouble perpetrator cause a different type of trouble for transference participantsfor transference participants

Awareness that the two are DIFFERENT Awareness that the two are DIFFERENT decreases transferencedecreases transference• Ross et al., (1994) (Experiment 2)Ross et al., (1994) (Experiment 2)• Phillips, Geiselman, Haghighi, & Lin (1997)Phillips, Geiselman, Haghighi, & Lin (1997)

Evidence for Unconscious Evidence for Unconscious TransferenceTransference

Loftus (1976)Loftus (1976) Read et al., (1990); Experiment 5Read et al., (1990); Experiment 5

View conscious inference as occuring at retrieval View conscious inference as occuring at retrieval

Ross et al., (1994); Experiments 1, 2, 3, 4Ross et al., (1994); Experiments 1, 2, 3, 4 Evidence for conscious inference at encodingEvidence for conscious inference at encoding Experiments 3 & 4 manipulated encodingExperiments 3 & 4 manipulated encoding Found conscious inference was made soon after Found conscious inference was made soon after

viewing the portion of video displaying the crimeviewing the portion of video displaying the crime

Meta-analysisMeta-analysis

Deffenbacher, Bornstein, & Penrod (2006)Deffenbacher, Bornstein, & Penrod (2006) Mainly a review of problems with mugshotsMainly a review of problems with mugshots Commitment effectsCommitment effects Retroactive InterferenceRetroactive Interference Unconscious TransferenceUnconscious Transference

• Effect size twice as large for studies looking at the Effect size twice as large for studies looking at the mugshot exposure compared to studies looking at mugshot exposure compared to studies looking at exposure to an innocent bystander exposure to an innocent bystander

Memory and Mugshot BooksMemory and Mugshot Books

Commitment effects pose a problemCommitment effects pose a problem Dysart, Lindsay, Hammond, & Dupuis (2001)Dysart, Lindsay, Hammond, & Dupuis (2001)

• Found greater inaccuracy rates for commitment Found greater inaccuracy rates for commitment group (Experiment 2)group (Experiment 2)

• No difference between control conditions and No difference between control conditions and transference conditions (Experiment 2)transference conditions (Experiment 2)

Other Related IssuesOther Related Issues

Older participantsOlder participants Higher misidentification rates for younger Higher misidentification rates for younger

facial stimulifacial stimuli More errors related to identity confusion for More errors related to identity confusion for

older participantsolder participants• Perfect & Harris (2003)Perfect & Harris (2003)

Other-race faces and context memoryOther-race faces and context memory More errors for which context (background) a More errors for which context (background) a

face was observed for African American facesface was observed for African American faces• Horry & Wright (2008)Horry & Wright (2008)

A Recent TheoryA Recent Theory

Unconscious transference as a type of Unconscious transference as a type of change blindness?change blindness?

Davis, Loftus, Vanous, & Cucciare, (2008)Davis, Loftus, Vanous, & Cucciare, (2008)

Illusions of continuityIllusions of continuity Levin & Simons (2000)Levin & Simons (2000)

Continuous vs. Discontinuous InnocentContinuous vs. Discontinuous Innocent Misidentification rates higher for the CIMisidentification rates higher for the CI

What do you think?What do you think?

Is the evidence for unconscious Is the evidence for unconscious transference compelling enough to attempt transference compelling enough to attempt policy suggestions or even worthy of policy suggestions or even worthy of mention in court by expert witnesses?mention in court by expert witnesses?

Does talking about this phenomenon Does talking about this phenomenon decrease the credibility of the expert decrease the credibility of the expert witness?witness? What about Kassin, et al’s (2001) position on What about Kassin, et al’s (2001) position on

reliable evidence? reliable evidence?

Thank You!Thank You!

Any comments or constructive criticism Any comments or constructive criticism you may have regarding this presentation you may have regarding this presentation would be greatly appreciated!would be greatly appreciated!

ReferencesReferences Davis, D., Loftus, E. F., Vanous, S., & Cucciare, M. (2008). ‘Unconscious transference’ can be an instance of Davis, D., Loftus, E. F., Vanous, S., & Cucciare, M. (2008). ‘Unconscious transference’ can be an instance of

‘change blindness.’ ‘change blindness.’ Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 605-623.605-623. Deffenbacher, K. A., Bornstein, B. H., & Penrod, S. D. (2006). Mugshot exposure effects: Retroactive Deffenbacher, K. A., Bornstein, B. H., & Penrod, S. D. (2006). Mugshot exposure effects: Retroactive

interference, mugshot commitment, source confusion, and unconscious transference. interference, mugshot commitment, source confusion, and unconscious transference. Law and Human Law and Human Behavior, 30, Behavior, 30, 287-307.287-307.

Dysart, J. E., Lindsay, R. C. L., Hammond, R., & Dupuis, P. (2001). Mugshot exposure prior to lineup Dysart, J. E., Lindsay, R. C. L., Hammond, R., & Dupuis, P. (2001). Mugshot exposure prior to lineup identification: Interference, transference, and commitment effects. identification: Interference, transference, and commitment effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1280-1280-1284. 1284.

Geiselman, R. E., Haghighi, R., & Stown, Ronna (1996). Geiselman, R. E., Haghighi, R., & Stown, Ronna (1996). Unconscious transference and characteristics of Unconscious transference and characteristics of accurate and inaccurate eyewitnesses. accurate and inaccurate eyewitnesses. Psychology, Crime, and Law, 2, Psychology, Crime, and Law, 2, 197-209.197-209.

Horry, R., & Wright, D. B. (2008). I know your face but not where I saw you: Context memory is impaired for Horry, R., & Wright, D. B. (2008). I know your face but not where I saw you: Context memory is impaired for other-race faces. other-race faces. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15,Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 610-614. 610-614.

Kassin, S. M., Tubb, V. A., Hosch, H. M., & Memon, A. (2001). Kassin, S. M., Tubb, V. A., Hosch, H. M., & Memon, A. (2001). On the “general acceptance” of eyewitness On the “general acceptance” of eyewitness testimony research. testimony research. American Psychologist, 56,American Psychologist, 56, 405-416. 405-416.

Loftus, E. F. (1976). Unconscious transference in eyewitness identification. Loftus, E. F. (1976). Unconscious transference in eyewitness identification. Law and Psychology Review, 2, Law and Psychology Review, 2, 93-98.93-98.

Perfect, T. J., & Harris, L. J. (2003). Adult age differences in unconscious transference: Source confusion or Perfect, T. J., & Harris, L. J. (2003). Adult age differences in unconscious transference: Source confusion or identity blending? identity blending? Memory & Cognition, 31,Memory & Cognition, 31, 570-580. 570-580.

Phillips, M. R., Geiselman, R. E., Haghighi, D., & Lin, C. (1997). Some boundary conditions for bystander Phillips, M. R., Geiselman, R. E., Haghighi, D., & Lin, C. (1997). Some boundary conditions for bystander misidentifications. misidentifications. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 24, Criminal Justice and Behavior, 24, 370-390. 370-390.

Read, D. J., Tollestrup, P., Hammersley, R., McFadzen, E., et al. (1990). The unconscious transference Read, D. J., Tollestrup, P., Hammersley, R., McFadzen, E., et al. (1990). The unconscious transference effect: Are innocent bystanders ever misidentified? effect: Are innocent bystanders ever misidentified? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 4, Applied Cognitive Psychology, 4, 3-31.3-31.

Ross, D. F., Ceci, S. J., Dunning, D., & Toglia, M. P. (1994). Unconscious transference and mistaken Ross, D. F., Ceci, S. J., Dunning, D., & Toglia, M. P. (1994). Unconscious transference and mistaken identity: When a witness misidentifies a familiar but innocent person. identity: When a witness misidentifies a familiar but innocent person. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79,Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 918- 918-930.930.