Running head: PERCEIVED STEREOTYPICALITY AND EYEWITNESS MEMORY. Perceived stereotypicality and eyewitness memory: Does the

Transcription

1 Perceived Stereotypicality 1 Running head: PERCEIVED STEREOTYPICALITY AND EYEWITNESS MEMORY Perceived stereotypicality and eyewitness memory: Does the type of crime affect eyewitness identifications? Danny Osborne May 27, 2009 Dissertation Proposal University of California, Los Angeles Social Psychology Committee Members: Paul G. Davies (Co-chair) Yuen J. Huo (Co-chair) Steven P. Reise Mark Q. Sawyer David O. Sears

2 Perceived Stereotypicality 2 Abstract The error-prone nature of eyewitness memory has been well-documented in past research (Wells & Olson, 2003). Notably, studies demonstrate that variables present 1) during the crime and 2) after the crime can affect the accuracy of eyewitness identifications. Though much has been learned from this literature, scholars have overlooked one aspect of the situation that may also produce errors in eyewitness identification. Namely, different crimes (i.e., crime types) could systematically affect eyewitness memory. Specifically, crime types could activate corresponding racial stereotypes. These could then cause eyewitnesses to remember the perpetrator as appearing more (or less) representative of his/her racial group (i.e., higher or lower on perceived stereotypicality). Crime types may be an unexplored contributor to errors in eyewitness identification.

3 Perceived Stereotypicality 3 Perceived stereotypicality and eyewitness memory: Does the type of crime affect eyewitness identifications? "All the evidence points rather strikingly to the conclusion that there is almost nothing more convincing than a live human being who takes the stand, points a finger at the defendant, and says 'That s the one!' - Elizabeth Loftus (Loftus, 1979, p. 19) February 6 th, 2009, was a day of long-awaited vindication for Timothy Cole. Nearly 25 years earlier, Cole was convicted of raping a young woman who was attending Texas Tech University. Despite having been identified by his accuser on multiple occasions, Cole maintained his innocence throughout his trial and, after his conviction, during subsequent parole hearings. By 2008, however, it became clear that the courts and Cole s accuser were mistaken: DNA tests confirmed that Cole was not the assailant. In order to rectify the almost quarter-century mistake, the Texas courts began the process of reevaluating the case and, by the beginning of February, 2009, exonerated Cole of all charges. Unfortunately, these measures came too late; Cole died in prison while serving time for a crime he did not commit (Vertuno, 2009). Though it may be easy to conclude that the case of Timothy Cole is an unfortunate albeit exceptional/rare tragedy, countless stories of mistaken eyewitness testimony suggest that this is an all too common phenomenon (e.g., Innocence Project, 2008b; Rattner, 1988; Thompson, 2000). Connors, Lundregan, Miller, and McEwen (1996) compiled a series of indepth case studies of people who were wrongfully imprisoned and found that, in the overwhelming majority of these cases, eyewitness testimony was the single most important piece

4 Perceived Stereotypicality 4 of evidence provided by the prosecution. That is, mistaken eyewitness identifications were the key factor that led to most of the wrongful convictions reviewed by the authors. Moreover, statistics provided by the Innocence Project (2008a), a non-profit legal defense organization devoted to identifying and overturning wrongful convictions, show that more than 75% of the 232 wrongful convictions identified in the US since 1989 included eyewitness testimony that was later shown to be mistaken. These analyses point to the unfortunate conclusion that eyewitness testimony may at least under some circumstances be prone to error. Eyewitness Identification The literature on eyewitness identification is replete with findings attesting to the frailty of eyewitness memory. Before reviewing this research, I outline the impact eyewitness testimony has on key players in the criminal justice system. Once I establish the layperson s general acceptance of eyewitness testimony, I provide a review of the literature on the various factors that have been shown to affect the accuracy of eyewitness memory. Following this, I briefly discuss the themes and oversights found in this literature, highlighting the dearth of attention given to the information provided by the context of a crime. In order to emphasize the potential importance of the context, this section is followed by a brief discussion on the impact stereotypes have on memory. A comprehensive review of the literature on perceived stereotypicality a variable that captures the extent to which a person is perceived to be physically representative of his/her social group is then provided, followed by a theoretical integration of the three major literatures reviewed in this paper. I conclude with a discussion on the implications this synthesis has for the field s understanding of eyewitness memory. In doing so, I hope to raise awareness about the problems associated with eyewitness identifications and, ultimately, to help prevent the grievous consequences they produce.

5 Perceived Stereotypicality 5 Impact of Eyewitness Testimony Is Loftus (1979) correct when stating that there is nothing more convincing than eyewitness testimony (p. 19)? Research overwhelmingly suggests that this is the case (e.g., Abshire & Bornstein, 2003; Cutler, Penrod, & Dexter, 1990; Lindsay, Lim, Marando, & Cully, 1986). That is, the testimony of an eyewitness often plays an influential role in the decisions made by jurors. Studies utilizing mock-juror paradigms in which participants assume the role of jurors demonstrate that jurors are relatively impervious to the factors that affect the accuracy of eyewitness memory (Abshire & Bornstein, 2003; Brewer & Burke, 2002; Cutler et al., 1990; Lindsay et al., 1986). Even inconsistencies in the testimony of an eyewitness, an intuitive sign of poor reliability, do not alter the impact eyewitness testimony has on the verdicts rendered by mock-jurors (Brewer & Burke, 2002; Lindsay et al., 1986). Moreover, a recent survey of actual jurors found that their knowledge of the factors affecting eyewitness memory departed from that of the experts nearly 90% of the time (Benton, Ross, Bradshaw, Thomas, & Bradshaw, 2006). The layperson is alarmingly uninformed about the limits of eyewitness testimony. Additional research has addressed the credibility other actors involved in the criminal justice system place on eyewitness testimony. Though practical limitations prevent scholars from obtaining experimental evidence, surveys suggest that prosecuting attorneys and law enforcement officials are unfoundedly-optimistic about the validity of eyewitness testimony (Brigham & WolfsKeil, 1983). Indeed, the majority of police officers feel that eyewitnesses are rarely, if ever, mistaken (Kebbell & Milne, 1998). Possibly most alarming given their role as the final arbiter in allowing expert testimony during actual trials, survey results suggest that judges also overestimate the reliability of eyewitness memory (Benton et al., 2006; Wise & Safer, 2004). The lack of awareness about the potential sources of error in eyewitness memory is found

6 Perceived Stereotypicality 6 throughout the criminal justice system. Types of Errors Although eyewitness identifications are seen as persuasive evidence by jurors and other important players in the criminal justice system (e.g., Benton et al., 2006; Brewer & Burke, 2002; Brigham & WolfsKeil, 1983; Wise & Safer, 2004), eyewitnesses can, unfortunately, be mistaken. Specifically, eyewitnesses can make two distinct types of mistakes when attempting to identify a suspect; namely, false alarms and misses. Both of these mistakes present considerable dilemmas for the judicial system, as the implications of these mistakes can be profound. As such, a brief description of both of these mistakes is provided below. False alarms. False alarms occur when an eyewitness mistakenly selects an innocent person from a lineup. That is, the eyewitness identifies an innocent person as the perpetrator of a previously-witnessed crime. These mistakes have serious implications for the criminal justice system. Namely, false alarms have the potential of sending innocent people to prison, often for extended periods of time (e.g., Innocence Project, 2008b; Thompson, 2000; Vertuno, 2009). Likewise, the actual perpetrator of the crime would be free to potentially victimize other individuals. Though it is impossible to know with certainty the frequency with which these types of mistakes occur (such an estimate would require knowing the actual innocence or guilt of a suspect), analyses of exonerated convictions suggest that false alarms are a major contributor to wrongful convictions (Connors et al., 1996; Innocence Project, 2008a). Given the gravity of such mistakes, considerable attention has been devoted to understanding the factors that contribute to false alarms. Misses. The complement to a false alarm is a miss. Misses occur when eyewitnesses fail to identify the actual perpetrator from a lineup. This can occur in two ways: 1) the eyewitness

7 Perceived Stereotypicality 7 identifies someone other than the actual perpetrator (who is in the lineup) or 2) the eyewitness fails to make a selection, despite the fact that the actual perpetrator is in the lineup. That is, when shown a lineup containing the actual perpetrator, the eyewitness either chooses an innocent person (i.e., provides a false alarm) or altogether rejects the lineup. The implication of this type of error is that the actual perpetrator may be released from custody. As such, people who are interested in decreasing the number of false alarms often express concern that such measures do not simultaneously lead to an increase in the rate of misses produced by eyewitnesses. Summary Eyewitness testimony plays an important role in the criminal justice system. Indeed, eyewitness identifications often influence the decisions made by jurors to a greater extent than other important diagnostic information (Lindsay et al., 1986). Likewise, other key players in the criminal justice system have been shown to be overly optimistic about the validity of eyewitness testimony (Benton et al., 2006; Brigham & WolfsKeil, 1983; Wise & Safer, 2004). Unfortunately, eyewitness memory can be compromised by a variety of factors (see below) and can lead to two distinct types of errors; namely, false alarms and misses. Both false alarms and misses have important implications for the criminal justice system, as these errors can lead to the imprisonment of an innocent person or allow a guilty person to walk free, respectively. Given the gravity of these errors, identifying the factors that affect eyewitness memory is a worthy endeavor. Factors Affecting Eyewitness Identification Despite the widespread consensus among the experts regarding the frailty of eyewitness memory (Kassin, Ellsworth, & Smith, 1989; Kassin, Tubb, Hosch, & Memon, 2001), many people associated with the criminal justice system are largely unaware of the variables that can

8 Perceived Stereotypicality 8 affect eyewitness testimony (Benton et al., 2006; Brewer & Burke, 2002; Cutler et al., 1990; Lindsay et al., 1986; Potter & Brewer, 1999; Wise & Safer, 2004). This is particularly alarming, given that a seemingly-endless list of variables have been shown to adversely affect the accuracy of eyewitness identifications. The following discussion provides a detailed review of this literature. For ease of presentation, these variables have been divided into variables that are present during the crime (i.e., concurrent variables) and variables that occur after the crime (i.e., post-occurrence variables). 1 Concurrent Variables Concurrent variables refer to variables that are present during the crime. That is, they are variables that 1) people associated with the crime bring to the situation (e.g., race of the eyewitness/suspect, etc.) or 2) are inherent aspects of the crime itself (e.g., duration of the crime, presence of a weapon, level of arousal induced by the crime, etc.). Regardless of their source (i.e., whether or not the variable is brought to, or an intrinsic part of, the crime), most of these variables have consistently been shown to influence the accuracy of eyewitness memory. Awareness of these variables is therefore needed in order to fully appreciate the tenuous nature of eyewitness testimony. Exposure time. Intuitively, one would predict that the length of time an eyewitness is able to see the perpetrator(s) will affect the accuracy of his/her memory. That is, the longer eyewitnesses are able to see a perpetrator, the more information they will be able to encode (i.e., put into memory) and presumably access (i.e., retrieve) during an identification task. As such, one might expect that the longer the exposure time, the more accurate one s memory. Indeed, research confirms this suspicion (O. H. MacLin, MacLin, & Malpass, 2001; Meissner & 1 Some scholars (e.g., Wells & Olson, 2003) use estimator and system variables as labels for concurrent postoccurrence variables, respectively. I prefer the latter labels as they appear to be more intuitive than the former labels.

9 Perceived Stereotypicality 9 Brigham, 2001; Memon, Hope, & Bull, 2003; Pezdek & Blandon-Gitlin, 2005). Exposure time is an important concurrent variable that can affect the accuracy of eyewitness identifications. In a study representative of the research on eyewitness memory, MacLin and colleagues (2001) had participants study 40 photographs of individual faces. During this task, participants were provided with either.5 seconds or 5 seconds to study each photograph (short and long study phase, respectively). Following this, participants were shown the photographs in a random order for a second time, except an additional 20 previously-unseen photographs were randomly interspersed throughout the presentation. During this second presentation, participants were asked to indicate which photographs had been presented during the study phase of the experiment and which photographs were new. This allowed the authors to assess the impact of exposure time on participants ability to identify previously-seen photographs. Consistent with the authors hypotheses, MacLin and colleagues (2001) found that exposure time significantly influenced the accuracy at which participants identified the photographs. Specifically, participants given the long study phase were significantly more accurate than participants given the short study phase at identifying the previously-seen photographs. Moreover, exposure time had similar effects for photographs of targets who were of the same race and who were of a different race than the participant, suggesting that the race of the suspect did not moderate the impact of exposure time on eyewitness accuracy. Exposure time has a substantial influence on the accuracy of eyewitness testimony and can contribute to errors in eyewitness identification. Subsequent research has expanded upon the results produced by MacLin and colleagues (2001). This research suggests that exposure time affects the rate of false alarms and misses. Specifically, people who are provided with shorter exposure time are more likely to commit both

10 Perceived Stereotypicality 10 types of errors than people who are provided with longer exposure time (Memon et al., 2003; Pezdek & Blandon-Gitlin, 2005). Moreover, age does not appear to moderate this effect, as eyewitnesses who are young and old are similarly affected by exposure time (Memon et al., 2003). Finally, it is important to note that the impact exposure time has on eyewitness memory is not limited to the laboratory setting; an archival study looking at the descriptions provided by eyewitnesses to actual bank robberies found that, after controlling for a variety of factors, exposure time was positively associated with accurate descriptions of the crime scene (Fahsing, Ask, & Granhag, 2004). Exposure time plays an important role in influencing the accuracy of eyewitness memory. Arousal. Given the inherently stressful nature of being a witness to and/or victim of a crime, psychologists have explored the impact arousal has on the accuracy of eyewitness memory. Intuitively, one might hypothesize that arousal leads to a decrement in memory performance. It may come as a surprise, then, to learn that research addressing this topic has yielded inconsistent results. Specifically, some studies have found that high levels of arousal lead to a decrement in the accuracy of eyewitness memory (Brigham, Maass, Martinez, & Whittenberger, 1983; Deffenbacher, Bornstein, Penrod, & McGorty, 2004; Dutton & Carroll, 2001; O. H. MacLin et al., 2001; Stanny & Johnson, 2000), while others suggest that arousal may actually enhance memory for certain aspects of the event in question (Bornstein, Liebel, & Scarberry, 1998; Burke, Heuer, & Reisberg, 1992; Christianson & Loftus, 1991; Christianson, Loftus, Hoffman, & Loftus, 1991; Libkuman, Nichols-Whitehead, Griffith, & Thomas, 1999; Safer, Christianson, Autry, & Osterlund, 1998; Wagstaff et al., 2003). The impact of arousal on eyewitness memory is more complex than it appears at first blush. In an early study addressing this issue, Brigham and colleagues (1983) had participants

11 Perceived Stereotypicality 11 perform a standard identification task under either a moderate or a high level of arousal. In the moderate arousal condition, participants were administered a single uncomfortable electrical shock and informed that they would not receive any additional shocks during a subsequent identification task. In the high arousal condition, participants were administered an uncomfortable electrical shock and continued to receive shocks at random points during a subsequent identification task. The rate of misses and false alarms produced by participants were then compared across the two levels of arousal. Consistent with the hypothesis that arousal leads to a decrement in the accuracy of eyewitness memory, Brigham and colleagues (1983) found a main effect for arousal. Specifically, participants in the high arousal condition produced more misses and more false alarms than participants in the moderate arousal condition. Follow-up analyses confirmed that these effects were due to arousal and not the actual administration of the shock. That is, the arousal induced by the possibility of being shocked, but not the shock itself, led to a decrement in the accuracy of eyewitness memory. Such results call into question the accuracy of eyewitness memory under arousing circumstances. Subsequent studies have replicated and extended the findings produced by Brigham and colleagues (1983). This research suggests that emotional, but not physical (i.e., arousal induced via physical activity), arousal adversely affects eyewitness memory (Dutton & Carroll, 2001). Additionally, relative to low levels of arousal, high levels of arousal have been shown to decrease the accuracy of eyewitness identification regardless of whether or not the faces are of the same or different race of the participant (O. H. MacLin et al., 2001). Notably, arousal has even been shown to adversely affect the memory of police officers (Stanny & Johnson, 2000), suggesting that people do not habituate to the impact of arousal on eyewitness memory.

12 Perceived Stereotypicality 12 Together, these findings demonstrate that high levels of arousal can adversely affect the accuracy of eyewitness memory. Though the research reviewed above shows that high levels of arousal can impair memory, other studies have produced results that are inconsistent with this conclusion. Christianson and Loftus (1991) showed that, while arousal led to a decrement in memory performance for peripheral details of an event, arousal actually increased participants memory for details central to the event in question. This finding has been replicated in subsequent studies (e.g., Burke et al., 1992; Safer et al., 1998), suggesting that the type of information assessed during recall is an important factor to consider when assessing the impact of arousal on memory. Nonetheless, these studies introduce an interesting complication to the literature on arousal and eyewitness memory. In an attempt to resolve this contradiction, Deffenbacher (1994) argued that arousal is best viewed as a multifaceted concept capable of producing either 1) an orienting or 2) a defensive response to arousing stimuli 2. The particular response produced, however, will depend on the type and level of arousal elicited by the arousal-inducing object. Stimuli that are mildly to moderately arousing, but not threatening, will activate an orienting response that focuses attention on central aspects of the arousal-inducing stimuli. Conversely, stimuli that are highly arousing or threatening will activate a defensive response that ultimately impairs memory performance. This model offers a plausible explanation for the contradictory results presented above (i.e., Burke et al., 1992; Christianson & Loftus, 1991; Christianson et al., 1991; Safer et al., 1998) and suggests that, under some conditions, non-threatening but nonetheless arousalinducing stimuli could boost memory performance for the central details of an event, but at the 2 Deffenbacher (1994) refers to these two responses as the arousal mode and the activation mode of attentional control, respectively. In order to avoid confusion with arousal (the adjective) and the arousal mode of attentional control (the noun), I refer to these modes in terms of their outcome (i.e., either orienting or defensive).

13 Perceived Stereotypicality 13 expense of memory for peripheral details. Given the thrust of Deffenbacher s (1994) argument (i.e., that non-threatening arousal will lead to an orienting response), context reinstatement procedures a process whereby eyewitnesses are provided with peripheral cues to help improve memory for central details of an event should work differently depending on the eyewitness level of arousal during the crime. Specifically, if non-threatening arousal focuses one s attention on the central details of an event at the expense of peripheral cues, context reinstatement procedures that draw on peripheral cues to improve memory should be ineffective when arousal is high. Consistent with this thesis, Brown (2003) demonstrated that context reinstatement procedures only work when arousal is low (i.e., when attention to peripheral details is not compromised). Moreover, arousal was shown to be positively related to accuracy for central details. Though these findings fit with Deffenbacher s (1994) multifaceted conceptualization of arousal, additional research is needed in order to fully understand the complicated relationship between arousal and memory. Cognitive load. Though only a few studies to date have looked at the impact cognitive load has on eyewitness memory, research on this topic appears to be more straight-forward than the literature addressing the impact of arousal on memory. Specifically, studies suggest that participants who are cognitively busy during both encoding (Brigham, Maass, Snyder, & Spaulding, 1982; Fahsing et al., 2004; Garcia-Marques, Hamilton, & Maddox, 2002) and retrieval (Garcia-Marques et al., 2002; Sherman & Bessenoff, 1999; Sherman, Groom, Ehrenberg, & Klauer, 2003) perform worse on memory tasks than participants who are not cognitively busy (but see Ehrenberg & Klauer, 2005, for an exception to the impact cognitive load during encoding has on memory). Moreover, field studies have shown that busy information environments lead to poorer eyewitness memory than information environments that are not busy

14 Perceived Stereotypicality 14 (Brigham et al., 1982; Fahsing et al., 2004). These studies demonstrate that higher levels of cognitive load adversely affect eyewitness memory relative to lower levels of cognitive load. Presence of a weapon. A variable that inevitably arises in the context of a crime is the presence (or absence) of a weapon. This has led many scholars to focus their attention on assessing the impact seeing a weapon has on eyewitness memory an endeavor that has produced a distinguished volume of literature. Specifically, in a phenomenon referred to as the weapon focus effect (WFE), it has been argued that the presence of a weapon leads to a decrease in the accuracy of eyewitness memory relative to had a weapon not been present (Kramer, Buckhout, & Eugenio, 1990; Loftus, Loftus, & Messo, 1987; Pickel, 1998; Pickel, Ross, & Truelove, 2006). That is, the memory of eyewitnesses who see a crime involving a weapon may be less accurate than the memory of eyewitnesses who see a crime that does not involve a weapon. Such a finding would have considerable implications for the testimony of eyewitnesses who see a violent crime. In the first study to address this issue, Loftus and colleagues (1987) had participants watch two versions of a mock surveillance video. In one version of the video, the target was shown approaching a cash register and, upon reaching the cashier, produced a weapon (i.e., a gun). In the other version of the video, the target was shown approaching a cash register and, upon reaching the cashier, produced a check. Aside from the object produced by the target, both versions of the video were identical to each other. After watching the video, participants completed a short filler task and were subsequently asked to identify the target from a 12-person lineup. False alarms were then compared across participants who were exposed to the different versions of the mock surveillance video. Consistent with the hypothesis derived from the WFE, Loftus and colleagues (1987)

15 Perceived Stereotypicality 15 found that participants who watched the video in which the target produced a weapon made more false alarms than participants who watched the video in which the target produced a check. Though the WFE has since been replicated (Kramer et al., 1990; Pickel, 1998; Pickel et al., 2006), a recent archival study comparing the descriptions provided by eyewitnesses with surveillance videos of actual bank and post-office robberies found that the presence of a highlyarousing weapon (i.e., a gun) was associated with an increase in the accuracy of eyewitness memory relative to robberies involving a less-arousing weapon (i.e., a knife; Fahsing et al., 2004). This is an interesting contradiction in the literature and suggests that there may be important moderators to the WFE. Such a possibility merits further exploration. The question of how the WFE occurs has also garnered scholarly attention. That is, research has begun to address the specific mechanisms responsible for the WFE. Since arousal would likely be heightened when in the presence of a weapon, it seems reasonable to suggest that arousal may mediate the relationship between the presence of a weapon and subsequent errors in eyewitness memory. Surprisingly, research suggests that this is not the case (Kramer et al., 1990; Pickel, 1998; Pickel et al., 2006). That is, arousal elicited by the presence of a weapon does not appear to be associated with increased errors in eyewitness memory. Kramer and colleagues (1990) addressed this issue by having participants watch a video of a staged crime. During the video, the target produced a weapon that was visible for either 1) a short period of time or 2) an extended period of time. Participants were then asked to provide descriptions of the crime via a cued recall task, as well as to indicate their level of arousal. The accuracy of participants descriptions were then computed and compared across the two conditions of weapon visibility (Study 1). Participants accuracy scores were also analyzed as a function of self-reported level of arousal and the presence (or absence) of a weapon (Study 2B).

16 Perceived Stereotypicality 16 Consistent with the authors hypotheses, Kramer and colleagues (1990) found that the quality of participants descriptions was inversely related to the duration the weapon was visible (Study 1). Study 2B replicated and extended this finding by showing that attention, but not arousal, was responsible for the effect. That is, participants self-reported arousal in response to the presence of a weapon was unrelated to the accuracy of their descriptions. This suggests that the attention commanded by the weapon itself was sufficient to produce the weapon focus effect. Subsequent work has corroborated this finding (e.g., Pickel, 1998; Pickel et al., 2006), demonstrating that the WFE is caused by the unexpectedness of, and, therefore, attention garnered by, seeing a weapon. Race of the suspect. Research also suggests that the race of the suspect has a substantial impact on the accuracy of eyewitness identifications. Specifically, eyewitness memory is typically impaired when the race of the suspect differs from the race of the eyewitness (Ayuk, 1990; Behrman & Davey, 2001; Brigham et al., 1982; Ferguson, Rhodes, Lee, & Siram, 2001; Kramer et al., 1990; O. H. MacLin, Van Sickler, MacLin, & Li, 2004; Malpass & Kravitz, 1969; Meissner & Brigham, 2001; Pezdek & Blandon-Gitlin, 2005; Pezdek, Blandon-Gitlin, & Moore, 2003; Platz & Hosch, 1988; D. B. Wright, Boyd, & Tredoux, 2001). This phenomenon, referred to in the literature as the cross-race effect or the own-race bias 3, has received a considerable amount of empirical attention over the last 40 years. In the first published study of the cross-race effect (CRE), Malpass and Kravitz (1969) had introductory psychology students view 20 close-up photographs of people who were either of the same race as the participant, or who were of a different race than the participant. This phase of the study, referred to as the study phase, was then followed by a testing phase in which 3 In order to maintain consistency and reduce confusion, I use the term cross-race effect (CRE) throughout this discussion.

17 Perceived Stereotypicality 17 participants were shown an additional 60 pictures. In order to control for possible order effects, the 80 pictures shown during the testing phase (20 old and 60 new) were presented to each participant in random order. During the testing phase, participants were asked to determine whether or not the photo had appeared during the study phase of the experiment. Consistent with the authors hypotheses, accuracy rates were lower when the photo was of a person of a different race than the participant than when the photo was of a person of the same race as the participant. Since this initial investigation, scholars have attempted to identify the mechanisms responsible for the CRE. Many have focused on the possibility that the lower rates of contact with people of a different race compared with people of their own race contribute to the crossrace effect (Brigham et al., 1983; Malpass & Kravitz, 1969; Meissner & Brigham, 2001; Platz & Hosch, 1988; D. B. Wright et al., 2001). Surprisingly, this research suggests only a small to moderate role of contact (Brigham et al., 1982; Meissner & Brigham, 2001; Platz & Hosch, 1988), or altogether fails to find a relationship between contact and the accuracy of cross-race identifications (Malpass & Kravitz, 1969; D. B. Wright et al., 2001). Likewise, racial prejudice appears to be unrelated to the cross-race effect (Brigham et al., 1983; Hills & Lewis, 2006; Meissner & Brigham, 2001; Platz & Hosch, 1988). Still, some argue that White eyewitnesses discount the consequences associated with false alarms for suspects who are Black compared with suspects who are White, thereby leading to a CRE for White eyewitnesses (Doyle, 2001). Research on the cross-race effect has also taken to field investigations. One study, conducted by Brigham and colleagues (1982), tested convenience store clerks accuracy at identifying a pair of confederates posing as customers who were either of the same or a different race than the clerk. During the study, a Black or a White confederate entered a convenience store and engaged in a distinctive interaction with the clerk (e.g., paying for an item using only

18 Perceived Stereotypicality 18 pennies) whose race was noted by the confederate. Five minutes later, a second confederate who was of a different race than the first confederate entered the same store and engaged in a different distinctive interaction with the clerk (e.g., asking for directions to a distant location). The race and behavior of the first confederate was determined randomly. Following a two-hour delay, experimenters posing as law interns entered the convenience store and asked the clerk if he or she had seen any of the people displayed in the following two six-person photo lineups: one lineup with White suspects and one lineup with Black suspects. Each lineup contained one of the confederates and five foils who were of the same-race as the confederate. As expected, Brigham and colleagues (1982) found that clerks were less accurate at identifying the cross-race confederate than they were at identifying the same-race confederate. Additional field studies have replicated and extended this finding (Platz & Hosch, 1988; D. B. Wright et al., 2001), thereby increasing the generalizability of the CRE. Specifically, one field study showed that eyewitnesses were over 2 times more likely to correctly identify a same-race target than they were to correctly identify a different-race target (D. B. Wright et al., 2001). Moreover, the CRE also seems to occur and may even be accentuated among people who have had training in eyewitness identification (Platz & Hosch, 1988). Taken together, this research suggests that the CRE is a particularly robust phenomenon that is not confined to the laboratory setting. A recent meta-analysis conducted by Meissner and Brigham (2001) provides a definitive assessment of the CRE. In their study, Meissner and Brigham looked at 39 published and unpublished studies on the CRE. In total, the authors analyzed over 30 years worth of research on the CRE. Consistent with the CRE, the authors found that the identification of a cross-race target was associated with more misses and more false alarms than the identification of a same-

19 Perceived Stereotypicality 19 race target. Specifically, participants identifying a cross-race target were over 1.5 times more likely to commit a false alarm than when identifying a same-race target. Interestingly, Whites were reliably more likely to demonstrate the CRE than Blacks or other racial minorities. In sum, identification of a cross-race suspect is associated with an increase in both misses and false alarms relative to the identification of a same-race suspect. Post-occurrence Variables In addition to uncovering the impact of variables that occur during a crime, research has identified a number of variables that emerge after a crime that can affect the accuracy of eyewitness identifications. Since many of these variables are under the control of people involved in the criminal justice system (e.g., lineup construction, lineup instructions, etc.), exploring the impact post-occurrence variables have on eyewitness memory is particularly important. That is, by identifying the variables that are controllable and that affect the accuracy of eyewitness memory, people associated with the criminal justice system can take steps toward decreasing the number of errors made during the identification process. This possibility warrants a detailed analysis of the post-occurrence variables known to influence eyewitness memory. Lineup construction. After a crime has been committed and reported to the appropriate authorities, law enforcement officials often obtain eyewitness descriptions of the perpetrator(s) in order to construct a lineup. Unfortunately, this process is susceptible to error. Research suggests that the manner in which a lineup is constructed can influence the accuracy of eyewitness identifications (Brewer & Wells, 2006; Brigham et al., 1982; Brigham & Ready, 1985; Cutler & Penrod, 1988; Lee et al., 2004; Lindsay, Martin, & Webber, 1994). Specifically, the degree to which known innocent people included in a lineup (i.e., foils) match the appearance of the suspect can affect the accuracy and, therefore, the fairness and diagnosticity of eyewitness

20 Perceived Stereotypicality 20 identifications (Brigham & Ready, 1985; Cutler, Penrod, & Martens, 1987). Namely, the closer the foils match the suspect, the fairer/more diagnostic the lineup (Lindsay & Wells, 1980). Careful selection of foils is needed in order to increase the accuracy of eyewitness identifications. While there is some debate about whether or not the foils included in a lineup need to match the description or the actual appearance of the suspect (e.g., Lindsay et al., 1994), having foils included in a lineup who are similar to the suspect increases the diagnosticity of an eyewitness selection (Brewer & Wells, 2006; Lindsay & Wells, 1980). A positive identification of a suspect who is described as a 5 10 White male will be more meaningful (i.e., diagnostic) if the foils included in the lineup are also White males who are roughly 5 10 than if the foils are Black females of varying heights the suspect in the latter scenario would intuitively be more likely to be identified than the suspect in the former scenario, regardless of the his actual guilt. This could easily increase the number of false alarms when the perpetrator is not included in the lineup. Lineups should include foils whose appearance closely resembles that of the suspect. Lineup presentation. It is also possible that the way lineups are presented can affect the accuracy of eyewitness identifications. Specifically, law enforcement officials have at least two options when presenting lineups to eyewitnesses: 1) a simultaneous presentation style in which the suspect and foils are shown simultaneously (i.e., all photos are shown at the same time) or 2) a sequential presentation style in which the suspect and foils are shown sequentially (i.e., each photo is shown by itself). Research suggests that the latter strategy is the most effective way to reduce false alarms (Cutler & Penrod, 1988; Lindsay et al., 1994; Lindsay & Wells, 1985; Steblay, Dysart, Fulero, & Lindsay, 2001). That is, having eyewitnesses choose a suspect out of a set of simultaneously-presented photos is more likely to result in a false alarm than having

21 Perceived Stereotypicality 21 eyewitnesses make a decision for each individual photograph. The reason for the superiority of sequential lineups over simultaneous lineups appears to be due to the different decision strategies required of the separate presentation styles. Specifically, simultaneous lineups lead to relative judgment strategies, while sequential lineups lead to absolute judgment strategies (Lindsay & Wells, 1985). That is, simultaneous presentation styles have eyewitnesses compare among the suspects in the lineup and choose the member who most closely matches their memory of the perpetrator relative to the other suspects in the lineup (see Wells, 1984 for a discussion on relative judgments). Conversely, sequential lineups have eyewitnesses compare each individual suspect with their memory of the actual perpetrator (Lindsay & Wells, 1985). When the actual perpetrator is not in the lineup, a relative decisionmaking strategy is likely to produce a false alarm (Cutler & Penrod, 1988; Steblay et al., 2001). Importantly, however, the sequential presentation of suspects via a lineup does not lead to an increase in the rate of misses (Cutler & Penrod, 1988). This suggests that there are few, if any, downsides to using a sequential lineup presentation strategy. Lineup instructions. The instructions given to eyewitnesses during the identification process can also influence the accuracy of eyewitness identifications. Specifically, instructions informing eyewitnesses that the suspect may or may not be present in the lineup can affect the likelihood of a false alarm (Brewer & Wells, 2006; Cutler et al., 1987). As one might expect, eyewitnesses who are told that the suspect may not be in the lineup (i.e., unbiased instructions) are less likely to produce a false alarm than eyewitnesses who are not given these instructions (i.e., biased instructions; Brewer & Wells, 2006; Cutler et al., 1987; Malpass & Devine, 1981; Steblay, 1997). Moreover, unbiased instructions yield identifications that are more diagnostic than biased instructions (Cutler et al., 1987). The use of unbiased instructions appears to be a

22 Perceived Stereotypicality 22 reasonable step law enforcement officials can take to reduce the number of mistaken identifications. A recent meta-analysis by Steblay (1997) confirmed the impact instructions have on the accuracy of eyewitness identifications. Specifically, Steblay found that biased instructions were consistently more likely to produce false alarms than unbiased instructions. Moreover, this was more likely to occur when the actual perpetrator was absent from the lineup than when the actual perpetrator was included in the lineup. When the perpetrator was absent from the lineup, unbiased instructions were nearly twice as likely as biased instructions to produce accurate identifications (accuracy rates for unbiased and biased instructions were 60% versus 35%, respectively). When the perpetrator was included in the lineup, however, the type of instructions had little impact on the accuracy of eyewitness identifications (accuracy rates for unbiased and biased instructions were 54% and 53%, respectively). Since it is impossible to know with certainty that the actual perpetrator is in the lineup, failing to provide unbiased instructions during an identification task can have serious consequences. Intervening lineup. Once a lineup is constructed and instructions have been given to a witness, there are still some variables that can impede the accuracy of eyewitness identification. One such variable is the number of times a lineup is administered to an eyewitness. Specifically, showing an eyewitness a lineup on more than one occasion can increase the probability of a false alarm (Brigham & Cairns, 1988; Deffenbacher, Bornstein, & Penrod, 2006; Haw, Dickinson, & Meissner, 2007; Hinz & Pezdek, 2001; Pezdek & Blandon-Gitlin, 2005). That is, after seeing an initial lineup containing a target foil, eyewitnesses are more likely to identify the target foil in a subsequent lineup than if they had not been exposed to the initial lineup. This suggests that eyewitnesses who are shown a suspect in multiple lineups are more likely to identify that suspect

23 Perceived Stereotypicality 23 regardless of his/her actual guilt than eyewitnesses who are shown the same suspect in a single lineup. In a typical study looking at the impact of intervening lineups on the accuracy of eyewitness identifications, Hinz and Pezdek (2001) had participants study the photograph of a person (i.e., the study target) for a brief period of time. After a week delay, participants were asked to identify the study target from one of two lineups: one lineup contained six foils (control lineup), while the other lineup contained five foils and a target foil (intervening lineup). Two days later, participants were asked to identify the study target for a second time. This time, however, participants were shown one of three six-person lineups: 1) one lineup contained the study target and foil target, along with four new foils, 2) another lineup contained the study target and five new foils, and 3) a third lineup contained the foil target and five new foils. The accuracy of participants identifications was then compared as a function of intervening and final lineups. Consistent with the results presented above, Hinz and Pezdek (2001) found that the intervening lineup had a significant effect on the accuracy of eyewitness identifications. Specifically, participants shown the intervening lineup were nearly three times as likely to identify the target foil as participants in the control condition when shown the second lineup consisting of the study target, foil target, and four new foils. Likewise, participants were nearly four times as likely to identify the target foil as participants in the control condition when shown the second lineup consisting of the foil target and five new foils (i.e., when the study target was absent from the lineup). False alarms are much more likely to occur when eyewitnesses are shown an intervening lineup than when they are not shown an intervening lineup. Variables that moderate the impact of intervening lineups on identification accuracy have

24 Perceived Stereotypicality 24 also attracted the attention of scholars. Pezdek and Blandon-Gitlin (2005) looked at the impact intervening lineups have on a variety of factors known to affect eyewitness memory. Consistent with the authors hypotheses, intervening lineups moderated the effect of numerous factors associated with errors in eyewitness memory. Namely, intervening lineups led to increased false alarms when 1) the suspect was of a different race than the eyewitness, 2) the delay between the initial exposure and final lineup task was increased, and 3) the exposure time was decreased. A subsequent meta-analysis found that the identification accuracy of eyewitnesses who are yoked into selecting a foil from an intervening lineup is lower than the accuracy of eyewitnesses who are merely exposed to a target foil in a different context (Deffenbacher et al., 2006). Exposure to an intervening lineup can lead to a decrement in the accuracy of eyewitness identification. Delay between initial exposure and testing. Though this factor is not always under the immediate control of people associated with the criminal justice system, the delay between exposure and testing has also been shown to have a significant influence on the accuracy of eyewitness memory (Behrman & Davey, 2001; Meissner & Brigham, 2001; Oliver, 1999; Pezdek & Blandon-Gitlin, 2005). Specifically, the longer the delay between the study phase and subsequent memory task, the greater the decrement in eyewitness memory (Behrman & Davey, 2001; Meissner & Brigham, 2001). Interestingly, though, MacLin and colleagues (2001) were unable to replicate these findings. A potential explanation for this discrepancy may be that delay is especially likely to have an effect on eyewitness memory when potential eyewitnesses are exposed to intervening information (e.g., Pezdek & Blandon-Gitlin, 2005). Relationship between confidence and accuracy. A final factor investigated by researchers interested in the accuracy of eyewitness memory is the relationship between an eyewitness confidence and his/her accuracy in the identification process. Despite the intuition that

25 Perceived Stereotypicality 25 confidence would be positively associated with accuracy, research suggests that the relationship between confidence and accuracy is weak (Brigham et al., 1983; Cutler et al., 1987; Jenkins & Davies, 1985; Memon et al., 2003; Pickel, 1998; Smith, Lindsay, Pryke, & Dysart, 2001) or nonexistent (Jenkins & Davies, 1985; Martin & Halverson, 1983; Memon et al., 2003; Pickel, 1998; Platz & Hosch, 1988; Shaw & Skolnick, 1994). That is, the degree to which eyewitnesses are confident in their identification of a suspect is relatively unrelated to the likelihood that they are correct. This is particularly troubling, given the fact that many jurors place a considerable amount of weight on the confidence of eyewitnesses when deriving a verdict (Brewer & Burke, 2002; Cutler et al., 1990; Potter & Brewer, 1999). Efforts to disseminate the scientific community s current understanding of the poor relationship between confidence and accuracy would be a worthwhile endeavor. Summary Since errors in eyewitness identification are believed to be the primary cause of wrongful convictions (Connors et al., 1996; Innocence Project, 2008a), the amount of attention that has been devoted to uncovering the various factors that affect eyewitness memory should come as no surprise. The importance of studying this issue is likely further motivated by the powerful influence eyewitness testimony has on key players in the criminal justice system (e.g., Benton et al., 2006; Brigham & WolfsKeil, 1983; Cutler et al., 1990; Wise & Safer, 2004). Such efforts have been fruitful; research on eyewitness memory has demonstrated that both concurrent variables (Loftus et al., 1987; Pickel et al., 2006) and post-occurrence variables (Cutler et al., 1987; Pezdek & Blandon-Gitlin, 2005) can have a substantial influence on the accuracy of eyewitness identifications. Identification of these factors is the first step in establishing measures designed to prevent wrongful convictions. While this review has been informative, a detailed

26 Perceived Stereotypicality 26 analysis of the themes and oversights of this literature is warranted. This is a topic to which I next turn. Themes and Oversights Studies addressing the factors that affect eyewitness identification have yielded results that inform our understanding of eyewitness memory. Namely, this research has shown that variables that are either 1) outside the control of the criminal justice system (i.e., concurrent variables) or 2) under the control of the criminal justice system (i.e., post-occurrence variables) affect the accuracy of eyewitness identifications. Underlying these research findings are two general themes: 1) a nearly-exclusive focus on the limits of eyewitness memory (i.e., the variables that are likely to render eyewitness identifications more or less accurate) and 2) an emphasis on cognition. Though this research has been informative, closer inspection suggests that important themes have been overlooked in the literature. The current section brings these issues to light by first addressing the themes that emerge from this research. In doing so, it is hoped that scholars will be motivated to incorporate these areas of oversight into their programs of research. Emphasis on the Limits of Eyewitness Memory The literature reviewed above has focused almost exclusively on the limits of eyewitness memory. That is, research on eyewitness identification has primarily addressed the variables that are likely to impair or, in some situations, improve the accuracy of eyewitness memory. Though this theme is most-evident in the research on post-occurrence variables (e.g., Foster, Libkuman, Schooler, & Loftus, 1994; Haw et al., 2007; Lindsay & Wells, 1985; Malpass & Devine, 1981; Steblay, 1997; Steblay et al., 2001), scholars addressing the impact concurrent variables have on eyewitness identification have also focused primarily on the limits of

27 Perceived Stereotypicality 27 eyewitness memory (e.g., O. H. MacLin et al., 2001; Malpass & Kravitz, 1969; Meissner & Brigham, 2001). Together, this work has generated a wealth of knowledge about when eyewitness identifications are likely to be suspect. The focus on the limits of eyewitness memory is likely motivated by the practical implications this work has for issues of social justice. Specifically, identifying the variables that impair eyewitness memory can help key players in the criminal justice system implement policies that reduce at least partially the likelihood of wrongful convictions. Law enforcement officials who know that 1) the duration eyewitnesses are exposed to a perpetrator (O. H. MacLin et al., 2001; Memon et al., 2003; Pezdek & Blandon-Gitlin, 2005), 2) the presence of a weapon (Loftus et al., 1987; Pickel et al., 2006), and/or 3) the interaction between the race of the eyewitness and the race of the perpetrator (Meissner & Brigham, 2001; Platz & Hosch, 1988; D. B. Wright et al., 2001) affect the accuracy of eyewitness identifications can place more (or less) confidence in eyewitness descriptions of the perpetrator(s) depending on the characteristics of the crime. This could then inform law enforcement officials where (and how) they need to strengthen their investigation. Awareness of the limits of eyewitness memory can influence the way in which evidence is pursued in a criminal investigation. Once a suspect is apprehended, an awareness of the limits of eyewitness memory could influence the way evidence is collected from an eyewitness. Law enforcement officials who are aware that lineup construction can affect the accuracy of eyewitness identifications could use this information to create lineups that optimize the diagnosticity of eyewitness identifications (Brewer & Wells, 2006; Brigham & Ready, 1985; Lindsay & Wells, 1980). Likewise, awareness of the drawbacks associated with lineups using a simultaneous presentation strategy could motivate police departments to use a sequential presentation strategy when showing

28 Perceived Stereotypicality 28 eyewitnesses a lineup (Cutler & Penrod, 1988; Steblay et al., 2001). Finally, knowing that instructions affect the accuracy of eyewitness memory could lead law enforcement officials to use unbiased instructions during an identification task (Malpass & Devine, 1981; Steblay, 1997). These simple strategies could decrease the likelihood of wrongful convictions and demonstrate the utility in identifying the limits of eyewitness memory. Emphasis on Cognition An emphasis on the cognitive processes involved in the identification process also emerges as a general theme in the literature on eyewitness identification. That is, the majority of research on eyewitness memory has focused on identifying the factors that affect the way in which eyewitnesses process information. This theme is most clearly seen in the research on concurrent variables. The amount of time eyewitnesses are able to devote to encoding the crime scene affects the accuracy of eyewitness identification (O. H. MacLin et al., 2001; Memon et al., 2003; Pezdek & Blandon-Gitlin, 2005). Likewise, factors that impair eyewitnesses attention whether it is due to a busy information environment (Brigham et al., 1982; Fahsing et al., 2004) or an attention-grabbing object (Kramer et al., 1990; Pickel, 1998; Pickel et al., 2006) can influence the processing of feature-defining characteristics and, subsequently, the accuracy of eyewitness identifications. In sum, research demonstrates that factors that undermine the cognitive processing of one s information environment affect the accuracy of eyewitness identifications. Cognition is also emphasized in the literature on post-occurrence variables. This research has shown that the decision-making strategies employed by eyewitnesses can affect the accuracy of eyewitness identifications (Lindsay & Wells, 1985; Smith et al., 2001). Likewise, the amount of delay between initial exposure and subsequent attempts to identify the perpetrator is

29 Perceived Stereotypicality 29 negatively associated with identification accuracy (Behrman & Davey, 2001; Meissner & Brigham, 2001). This presumably occurs because delay increases the likelihood of memory decay (e.g., A. A. Wright, Santiago, Sands, Kendrick, & Cook, 1985). Finally, source confusion (i.e., not remembering the context in which a target foil was seen) can also affect the accuracy of eyewitness identifications (Deffenbacher et al., 2006). The cognitive processes involved in eyewitness identification have been well-explored by past research. Oversight # 1: Emotion/Motivation Given the emphasis scholars have placed on cognitive processes, it is no surprise that motivation/affect has been relatively ignored in the literature on eyewitness identification. That is, studies addressing some of the affective variables that may impair eyewitness memory have been overlooked in most of the work on eyewitness identification. The few studies that have addressed this possibility particularly by looking at the influence intergroup biases such as racial prejudice have on eyewitness memory have failed to find an effect of motivation on the accuracy of eyewitness identifications (Brigham et al., 1983; Hills & Lewis, 2006; Oliver & Fonash, 2002). Nevertheless, it is possible that motivation may affect eyewitness memory at an implicit level. Indeed, the literature in intergroup relations has shown that implicit attitudes can affect attitudes and/or behaviors toward others in a variety of domains (e.g., Blair, Chapleau, & Judd, 2005; Kahn, Davies, Eberhardt, & Correll, 2008; Livingston & Brewer, 2002; Terkildsen, 1993). Scholars addressing the frailty of eyewitness memory would be well-advised to incorporate implicit measures of racial bias into their programs of research. Oversight # 2: What are the Mechanisms? With the exception of some of the work on the WFE (e.g., Kramer et al., 1990; Pickel, 1998; Pickel et al., 2006), research assessing the accuracy of eyewitness memory has largely

30 Perceived Stereotypicality 30 overlooked the mediators of eyewitness memory. That is, most of the research addressed above has focused almost exclusively the main effects and interactions of variables on the accuracy of eyewitness identifications. As a result, the mechanisms underlying errors in eyewitness memory have fallen outside the scope of this literature. This is unfortunate, as understanding the underlying cause of errors in eyewitness memory can be just as important as if not more important than knowing the limits to eyewitness memory. Identifying the mechanisms underlying errors in eyewitness memory will be a promising area for future research. Oversight # 3: What About the Type of Crime? Though the review provided above suggests that scholars have devoted a considerable amount of attention to the variables that limit the accuracy of eyewitness memory, the literature on eyewitness identification has overlooked an aspect of the situation that is likely to serve as an additional source of error. Specifically, it is possible that the type of crime (i.e., crime types) a suspect is accused of committing influences what eyewitnesses remember about the given suspect. This oversight is problematic, given that different crimes are likely to produce different expectations about the likely attributes of the given perpetrator. Eyewitnesses to a white-collar crime are likely to have very different expectations about the type of criminal who is likely to commit the given crime than are eyewitnesses to a drive-by shooting. As suggested by the literature on stereotypes and memory (Araya, Ekehammar, & Akrami, 2003; Lenton, Blair, & Hastie, 2001; Roediger & McDermott, 1995; Sherman et al., 2003), these expectations could potentially affect both the encoding and retrieval processes involved in eyewitness identifications. Addressing the impact crime types have on eyewitness memory could provide additional insight into the identification process. Schemas, Stereotypes, and Memory

31 Perceived Stereotypicality 31 As suggested above, crime types could affect an eyewitness ability to identify the perpetrator of a given crime. Specifically, the type of crime an eyewitness sees could activate a corresponding stereotype that leads him or her to process information about the perpetrator s appearance in a stereotype-consistent manner (e.g., Martin & Halverson, 1981, 1983). That is, crime types could activate stereotypes about the physical appearance of the prototypical criminal of a given crime. This would lead eyewitnesses to pay attention to stereotype-consistent information about the perpetrator s appearance at the expense of stereotype-inconsistent information (Pendry & Macrae, 1999). Moreover, crime types may cause eyewitnesses to recall stereotype-consistent information about the perpetrator s appearance, even if such information was not present during the initial stage of encoding (Lenton et al., 2001; McDermott, 1996; Roediger & McDermott, 1995; Underwood, 1965). This would ultimately affect eyewitnesses memory of the perpetrator in a systematic manner, thereby contributing to errors in eyewitness identification. The literature reviewed below delves deeper into the possibility that crime types affect eyewitness memory. This is achieved by describing one of the first studies on memory biases that showed that memory involves the reconstruction as opposed to reproduction of the to-beremembered information. This section is followed by a discussion on the primacy given to expectations/stereotypes during the process of remembering. Next, the reader is provided with a review of the literature showing that stereotypes can cause people to remember information that was not present in the original testing session. Finally, the variables that moderate the relationship between stereotypes and memory biases are briefly discussed in order to provide the reader with a comprehensive analysis of the various factors affecting memory. In doing so, it is hoped that the reader receives a comprehensive account of the impact stereotypes have on

32 Perceived Stereotypicality 32 memory. This will ultimately increase our understanding of a previously-neglected, yet potential, source of error in eyewitness identification; namely, crime types. Early Research on Memory Biases In a landmark study on memory, Bartlett (1932) had participants read a story with themes that ran counter to their dominant culture (i.e., a story involving unfamiliar supernatural phenomena). Participants were then asked to recall the story on repeated occasions, starting with an initial recall session that occurred 15 minutes after completing the reading task. The recalled stories were then compared with the original story and the author noted themes that emerged in the ways in which participants recalled stories departed from the original story. Rather than reproducing the original story verbatim, Bartlett found that participants distorted the original story in a manner that was consistent with their cultural expectations. That is, participants reconstructed the original story so that it made sense to them given their cultural backgrounds. This demonstrated that remembering is a reconstructive process and that memory is influenced by the perceiver s understanding and expectations of the social world. Subsequent work has expanded on the idea that memory is a reconstructive process. Loftus and Palmer (1974) showed that subtle variations in the way a question is asked can lead participants to reconstruct their memory of the event in question. Likewise, misleading questions can cause people to recall the misleading information contained in the question during a subsequent testing period (Roebers & Schneider, 2000). Moreover, participants provided with misleading information about the appearance of a person have been shown to incorporate this erroneous information into their own recollections of the person s appearance (Loftus & Greene, 1980). Even memory for autobiographical events are susceptible to reconstructive processes (Bahrick, Hall, & Berger, 1996; Braun, Ellis, & Loftus, 2001). Memories are best-conceived as

33 Perceived Stereotypicality 33 reconstructions rather than reproductions of reality. The Influence of Stereotypes on Memory Because memories are cognitive reconstructions of past events, information that is consistent with one s expectations may be easier to recall than information that is inconsistent with one s expectations. That is, stereotype-consistent information may be remembered better than stereotype-inconsistent (or neutral) information. Macrae, Milne, and Bodenhausen (1994) explored this possibility by having participants form an impression of a target person while reading a list of traits some of which were consistent with a stereotype that were allegedly descriptive of the target. Prior to reading the traits, however, participants were randomly assigned to 1) receive a stereotype label of the target or 2) were not given a stereotype label of the target. After reading the descriptive traits, participants were asked to recall as many traits as possible that were presented during the impression formation stage of the study. Consistent with the thesis that stereotype-consistent information is easier to remember than stereotype-inconsistent information, Macrae and colleagues (1994) found a main effect for stereotype label on the recall task. Specifically, participants given the stereotype label of the target recalled twice as many stereotype-consistent traits than participants who were not given the stereotype label. Interestingly, stereotype label did not facilitate memory for neutral traits; participants who were given the stereotype label were no more likely to remember traits that were neutral to the stereotype label than participants who were not given the stereotype label. This suggests that stereotypes facilitate memory and that information consistent with one s expectations/stereotypes is easier to recall than information that is inconsistent with one s expectations/stereotypes. Subsequent work has replicated and expanded upon the results discussed above.

34 Perceived Stereotypicality 34 Crawford and Skowronski (1998) found that people who are high on need for cognition, a variable that assesses the extent to which people enjoy engaging in effortful processing of information, are more likely to recall stereotype-consistent information than people who are low on need for cognition. Additionally, communicating information to others is more likely to cause one to recall stereotype-consistent information than merely recalling the information to one s self (Lyons & Kashima, 2006). The effect of communication on stereotype-consistent memory biases is especially likely to occur when the person believed to receive the information is unaware of the given stereotype (Lyons & Kashima, 2003). Finally, Koomen and Dijker (1997) found that people are more likely to recall stereotype-consistent information about an outgroup than they are for an ingroup. This suggests that stereotypes about outgroup members will be especially likely to enter one s memory relative to ingroup members. False Memories Research on false memories represents perhaps the most impressive evidence of the impact expectations have on memory. Specifically, this literature demonstrates that, not only is stereotype-consistent information better recalled than stereotype-inconsistent information, but that stereotypes can also create memories for things that never occurred (Araya et al., 2003; Gallo, McDermott, Percer, & Roediger III, 2001; Lenton et al., 2001; Roediger & McDermott, 1995). That is, people have a tendency to remember witnessing things that were not initially observed if these things are consistent with their expectations. The creation of false memories is an interesting phenomenon that demonstrates the impact expectations have on memory for everyday events. In a paradigm typical of the research on false memories, Roediger and McDermott (1995) had participants study a list of words consistent with a theme (e.g., words associated with, but

35 Perceived Stereotypicality 35 not including, the word chair ). Following this, participants were asked to perform a free recall task and write down the words presented during the study phase of the experiment. Participants were then provided with a list of words and asked to rate whether or not they recognized any of the words from the study phase of the experiment. Included in the list were studied words, words unrelated to the theme (i.e., non-studied words such as door ), and words that were not presented but were related to the theme (i.e., critical non-studied words such as chair ). Participants false alarm rates were then computed and compared across non-studied and critical non-studied words. Consistent with the authors hypotheses, Roediger and McDermott (1995) found that participants were more likely to recall a critical non-studied word than a non-studied word unrelated to the list. That is, participants recalled words that were consistent with the general theme of the list, yet were nonetheless absent from the initial study phase of the experiment. Moreover, participants recognition of the critical non-studied words was also high; self-reported recognition rates of the critical non-studied words were nearly identical to the self-reported recognition rates of the actually-studied words (84% vs. 86%, respectively). Conversely, the recognition rate for non-studied words was only 2%. This suggests that expectations can create false memories that are consistent with people s expectations. Additional studies have built upon the word study paradigm described above. Seamon, Luo, and Galo (1998) replicated Roediger and McDermott s (1995) results and found that false memories of critical non-studied words can even occur when memory for the actually-studied words is poor. This suggests that the false memory effect occurs as a result of non-conscious processes. Interestingly, the recognition of critical non-studied words is difficult to eliminate; participants who are given multiple chances to study a list of words and who are told not to guess

36 Perceived Stereotypicality 36 still recall critical non-studied words at an alarming rate (McDermott, 1996). Moreover, participants who are given instructions to forget the list of studied words are more likely to recall critical non-studied words than participants who are given no such instructions (Araya et al., 2003). False memories are easy to create, but difficult to eliminate. False Memories in an Intergroup Context While it is one thing to show that false memories based on expectations can be created for semantically-related information, it is another thing to argue that people s memories about social groups are also susceptible to this bias. That is, the research on false memories may (or may not) be applicable to remembering aspects about other people. Interestingly, research suggests that expectations/stereotypes can also create false memories about people based on their social groups (Lenton et al., 2001; Martin & Halverson, 1983; Oliver, 1999; Payne, Jacoby, & Lambert, 2004). That is, stereotypes about social groups can cause people to develop false memories about others that are consistent with the corresponding stereotype. False memories are not limited to semantic associations, but rather, occur when people have expectations about things in general. In an early study addressing the malleability of memory for social information, Martin and Halverson (1983) showed young children a series of black-and-white drawings of a male or female actor performing an activity that was either consistent or inconsistent with the actor s sex role (i.e., activities that were either masculine or feminine). After a week-long delay, participants were asked to perform a free-recall task and report what they remembered about the drawings. Following this, participants completed a cued-recall task during which the experimenter explicitly asked participants if they had seen a drawing that depicted a given activity. Participants were then asked to report the sex of the actor performing the given activity, after

37 Perceived Stereotypicality 37 which the experimenter asked the same set of questions about another activity. This was repeated until the experimenter asked questions about every one of the activities that was previously shown. The number of times participants misremembered the sex of the actor in a stereotypeconsistent manner served as the primary dependent variable. Consistent with the hypothesis that expectations can create false memories, Martin and Halverson (1983) found that the consistency between the activity and the actor s sex affected participants memory. Specifically, participants misremembered the sex of the actor more often when the activity was inconsistent with the actor s sex than when the activity was consistent with the actor s sex. This effect occurred for both the free-recall task and the cued-recall task, suggesting that participants reconstructed their memory to be consistent with their expectations. Importantly, confidence ratings were unrelated to the accuracy with which participants remembered the pictures. Expectations about people based on their group membership can also create false memories. The impact expectations have on memory has been demonstrated in other domains as well. Research shows that people misremember the activities performed by others, whether they be occupations (Drabman et al., 1981) or interpersonal/daily interactions (Sherman & Bessenoff, 1999; Sherman et al., 2003), in a stereotype-consistent manner. More relevant to the case of eyewitness memory, participants who are provided with evidence about a crime remember more incriminating evidence when the suspect is described with a negative stereotype than when the suspect is described with a positive stereotype (van Knippenberg, Dijksterhuis, & Vermeulen, 1999). Finally, participants who watch a newscast containing a story about a crime are more likely to mistakenly remember a White suspect as Black than they are to mistakenly remember a Black suspect as White (Oliver, 1999). Expectations based on group membership have a clear

38 Perceived Stereotypicality 38 impact on memory. Moderators of Stereotype-consistent Memory Biases Since establishing the impact of expectations on memory, studies have begun to address the moderators of stereotype-consistent memory biases. This research has shown that both aspects of the situation (i.e., cognitive load) and individual differences (i.e., need for cognition) can influence the likelihood that people exhibit stereotype-consistent memory distortions. Given the possible implications this research has for eyewitness identifications (i.e., certain situations and/or types of people may be more likely to exhibit stereotype-consistent memory biases), a brief review of this literature is provided below. Cognitive load. Cognitive load, the extent to which a person s ability to process information is impaired by the situation, has been shown to be an important moderator of the impact stereotypes have on memory. Specifically, research suggests that people who are overwhelmed by multiple cognitively-demanding tasks experience an increase in stereotypeconsistent memory biases (Sherman et al., 2003; van Knippenberg et al., 1999). Van Knippenberg and colleagues (1999) showed that participants who were under high, but not low, cognitive load recalled more incriminating evidence than exonerating evidence when a negative stereotype, as opposed to a positive stereotype, was used to describe the given suspect. Importantly, people are insensitive to the heterogeneity of a stereotyped group when cognitive load is high (Pendry & Macrae, 1999). This suggests that, regardless of the actual diversity of an outgroup, expectations will lead people to recall stereotype-consistent information when cognitive load is high. The extent to which the situation depletes one s ability to process information is likely to affect eyewitness memory. Need for cognition. It is possible that individual differences also affect the extent to

39 Perceived Stereotypicality 39 which a person demonstrates stereotype-consistent memory biases. That is, certain styles of thinking may make a person more prone to stereotype-consistent memory biases than other styles of thinking. Research on need for cognition, a variable that captures the extent to which a person enjoys the effortful processing of information, supports this assertion. Specifically, individuals who are high on need for cognition are more susceptible to stereotype-consistent memory biases than individuals who are low on need for cognition (Crawford & Skowronski, 1998). Individual differences may also contribute to some of the stereotype-consistent memory biases reviewed above. Summary Research in social and cognitive psychology has shown that stereotypes contribute to memory biases. Specifically, people recall stereotype-consistent information easier than stereotype-inconsistent information (Koomen & Dijker, 1997; Pendry & Macrae, 1999). Interestingly, expectations have also been shown to create false memories based on semantic associations (Araya et al., 2003; Roediger & McDermott, 1995) and stereotypes about social groups (Lenton et al., 2001; Martin & Halverson, 1983; Oliver, 1999; Payne et al., 2004). Additional research has focused on moderators of the effect. These studies have demonstrated that variables such as cognitive load (Blair, Judd, & Fallman, 2004; Pendry & Macrae, 1999; Sherman et al., 2003) and need for cognition (Crawford & Skowronski, 1998) can exacerbate the impact of stereotypes on memory. Because stereotypes affect memory (e.g., people demonstrate stereotype-consistent memory biases; see Araya et al., 2003; Crawford & Skowronski, 1998; Drabman et al., 1981; Koomen & Dijker, 1997; Lenton et al., 2001; Sherman & Bessenoff, 1999; van Knippenberg et al., 1999), eyewitness identifications could be influenced by people s expectations about a

40 Perceived Stereotypicality 40 criminal s appearance. That is, people may have stereotypes about the physical appearance of a perpetrator of a given crime (M. K. MacLin & Herrera, 2006). Once activated, these stereotypes could focus the attention of an eyewitness onto physical features of the perpetrator that are stereotype-consistent and, importantly, fill in missing or degraded information about the perpetrator s appearance (for an argument regarding the role of stereotypes/schemas in the processing of information, see Martin & Halverson, 1981). This could ultimately alter an eyewitness memory of the perpetrator, thereby contributing to some of the errors in eyewitness identification that were discussed in the opening paragraphs of the current paper. A discussion regarding the presence of visual stereotypes is therefore warranted before addressing the implications of this possibility. Biases Based on Perceived Stereotypicality Perceived stereotypicality, 4 or the degree to which a person is perceived to possess physical features that are believed to be representative of a given racial group, is a type of stereotype that people have regarding the appearance of others based on group membership. That is, people have expectations about the appearance of a prototypical member of a given racial group and these expectations are likely to differ from their expectations about the appearance of a prototypical member of a different racial group. In this way, perceived stereotypicality can be seen as a literal extension of Lippmann s (1922) characterization of stereotypes as pictures [emphasis added] in our head (p. 2). Though the majority of research in this area has studied perceived stereotypicality in relation to perceivers attitudes and behaviors toward Blacks (Blair et al., 2005; Blair, Judd, & Chapleau, 2004; Eberhardt, Davies, Purdie-Vaughns, & Johnson, 4 Past research has referred to this concept by various terms including Afrocentric bias (Blair et al., 2005; Blair, Judd, Sadler, & Jenkins, 2002), color complex (Russell, Wilson, & Hall, 1993), pigmentocracy (Sidanius, Pena, & Sawyer, 2001), skin tone bias (Ronquillo et al., 2007), and subgroup prejudice (Uhlmann, Dasgupta, Elgueta, Greenwald, & Swanson, 2002), to name a few. In order to maintain consistency and avoid confusion, I use the term perceived stereotypicality when discussing these literatures.

41 Perceived Stereotypicality ; Hall, 1992; Kahn et al., 2008; Maddox & Gray, 2002; Russell et al., 1993), there are a few notable exceptions (e.g., Hunter, 2002; Sidanius et al., 2001; Uhlmann et al., 2002). Nevertheless, given the richness of this literature, I focus my discussion on perceived Black stereotypicality (i.e., the extent to which a person is perceived to be physically representative of the group Blacks ). On the most basic level, a person who is perceived to be highly-representative of Blacks (i.e., someone who is high on perceived Black stereotypicality) will have a darker skin tone than a person who is perceived to be less-representative of Blacks (i.e., someone who is low on perceived Black stereotypicality; Hall, 1992; Maddox & Gray, 2002; Russell et al., 1993). A particularly notorious example of this conceptualization of perceived Black stereotypicality is shown in Figure 1. Both photographs are of O. J. Simpson, the famous former professional football player who was accused and subsequently acquitted of a double-homicide in the Los Angeles area during the mid-1990s. The photograph on the left is the actual photograph of Mr. Simpson given to the media by the Los Angeles Police Department. The photograph on the right, however, was altered by an artist who darkened Mr. Simpson s skin tone (Carmody, 1994). That is, the photograph shown on the right was consciously manipulated, making Mr. Simpson appear higher on perceived Black stereotypicality than the photograph shown on the left. This illustrates, in its most restrictive form, a basic conceptualization of perceived Black stereotypicality. Additional research has broadened the conceptualization of perceived Black stereotypicality beyond the manner referenced above. Specifically, some scholars include a more inclusive list of physical features when referencing perceived Black stereotypicality (e.g., Blair et al., 2005; Blair, Judd, & Chapleau, 2004; Blair, Judd, & Fallman, 2004; Blair et al., 2002;

42 Perceived Stereotypicality 42 Eberhardt et al., 2006; Kahn et al., 2008; Livingston & Brewer, 2002). These features include the breadth of one s nose and the thickness of one s lips, in addition to skin tone. As such, a person who is high on perceived Black stereotypicality is expected to have a darker skin tone, a broader nose, and thicker lips than a person who is low on perceived Black stereotypicality. An example of this more inclusive conceptualization of perceived Black stereotypicality is shown in Figure 2. Despite the differences in how past research has conceptualized perceived stereotypicality, a basic theme runs throughout this literature. Namely, people who are high on perceived Black stereotypicality are seen as more representative of Blacks than people who are low on perceived Black stereotypicality. That is, people who are high on perceived Black stereotypicality are expected to more closely match the stereotypes of a prototypical member of the Black community than people who are low on perceived Black stereotypicality (Blair et al., 2002; Livingston & Brewer, 2002). In light of the previous discussion on stereotype-consistent memory biases (e.g., Araya et al., 2003; Roediger & McDermott, 1995), perceived Black stereotypicality could have serious implications for eyewitness memory. Specifically, certain contexts could cause people to remember a perpetrator in a stereotype-consistent manner (i.e., high or low on perceived Black stereotypicality, depending on the context). Given the gravity of this implication, I provide the reader with a detailed review of the literature on perceived stereotypicality. Historical Impact of Perceived Black Stereotypicality Biases Though perceived stereotypicality has, until most recently, been ignored by social psychologists, it has long played a major role in intergroup relations within the United States. During the long period of slavery, perceived Black stereotypicality influenced the value and treatment slaveholders assigned to slaves (Drake & Cayton, 1962; Frazier, 1957; Landry, 1987;

43 Perceived Stereotypicality 43 Myrdal, 1944). Specifically, Blacks who were low on perceived Black stereotypicality were sold on the slave market at higher prices than Blacks who were high on perceived Black stereotypicality (Drake & Cayton, 1962; Kotlikoff, 1979; Myrdal, 1944). Likewise, people who were low on perceived Black stereotypicality received relatively better treatment than people who were high on perceived Black stereotypicality, as suggested by their greater presence as house servants relative to field hands (Frazier, 1957; Kotlikoff, 1979; Russell et al., 1993). Differential valuation and treatment of slaves based on perceived Black stereotypicality was commonplace during slavery. In a particularly illustrative example of the impact perceived Black stereotypicality had on the treatment of Blacks during slavery, Kotlikoff (1979) located the invoices of Blacks who were sold on the slave market in New Orleans over a nearly 60 year period. Remarkably, these invoices included an indication of the perceived Black stereotypicality of the people being sold (i.e., slaves were classified as Black or mulatto ), along with a variety of other factors. Consistent with the perceived Black stereotypicality biases noted above, slaveholders paid 5.3% more for Black women who were low on perceived Black stereotypicality than they did for Black women who were high on perceived Black stereotypicality. Moreover, Black women who were low on perceived Black stereotypicality were more likely to be used as house servants than Black women who were high on perceived Black stereotypicality. Perceived Black stereotypicality has played an historical role in the treatment of people who are Black and living in the United States. Lingering Effects of Perceived Black Stereotypicality Biases Unfortunately, perceived Black stereotypicality continues to exert a profound influence on the lives of Blacks in the United States. Keith and Herring (1991) looked at data from the

44 Perceived Stereotypicality 44 National Survey of Black Americans (NSBA) to assess the impact of perceived Black stereotypicality on the socioeconomic status of Black Americans. The NSBA consists of a nation-wide probability sample of all known Black households in the United States. Once households were randomly selected, an interview was conducted at the respondent s home. This provided the interviewer with an opportunity to evaluate the level of perceived Black stereotypicality of the respondent, as measured by skin tone, as well as to assess the respondent s socioeconomic status and other important background characteristics. After controlling for factors such as parental socioeconomic status and the respondent s current region of residence, Keith and Herring (1991) found that the respondent s level of perceived Black stereotypicality continued to have a significant influence on his or her life. Specifically, respondents who were high on perceived Black stereotypicality had lower levels of 1) educational attainment, 2) occupational prestige, and 3) income than respondents who were low on perceived Black stereotypicality. Additional studies have found similar discrepancies in socioeconomic status within the Black community that are based on perceived Black stereotypicality (Hill, 2000; Hughes & Hertel, 1990; Hunter, 2002), suggesting that this finding is particularly robust to different sample characteristics. Perceived Black stereotypicality biases continue to shape the economic prospects of Americans who are Black. Though correlational studies such as Keith and Herring s (1991) offer important insights into the relationship between perceived Black stereotypicality and socioeconomic status, there are problems associated with relying on retrospective accounts of one s background. Specifically, one could misreport his or her socioeconomic status growing up. This could occur either due to forgetting or for various self-presentation concerns (e.g., failure to succeed despite coming from a privileged background might lead one to report a more modest upbringing; one

45 Perceived Stereotypicality 45 may be tempted to overemphasize his or her success by claiming to have achieved greater social mobility than reality would suggest; etc.). Fortunately, a recent longitudinal analysis conducted by Hill (2000) allows one to overcome these difficulties by tracking the relationship between perceived Black stereotypicality and life chances over the course of the respondent s life. In this study, Hill relied on the death certificates of native-born Blacks to ascertain their socioeconomic status and retrospectively linked these data to the 1920 U.S. Census. Importantly, the U.S. Census in 1920 used a racial categorization system that classified Blacks as either Black or mulatto. This allowed the researcher to classify respondents into high versus low levels of perceived Black stereotypicality, respectively, and provided a clear test of the impact perceived Black stereotypicality has on one s life chances. Consistent with the perceived Black stereotypicality biases described above, Hill (2000) found that the odds of having a white-collar job for a person who was classified as low on perceived Black stereotypicality were 2.5 times better than a person who was classified as high on perceived Black stereotypicality, all else being equal. Moreover, the impact of childhood background only accounted for a small portion of the variance in later socioeconomic status (i.e., only between 10 and 20% of the variance in adulthood socioeconomic status was explained by relevant background characteristics). This led Hill to conclude that the observed discrepancy in socioeconomic status between people who were high versus low on perceived Black stereotypicality was due to continued biases against those who were high on perceived Black stereotypicality rather than to an inherited legacy of bias. That is, the discrepancy was NOT merely due to the fact that people who are high on perceived Black stereotypicality tend to come from a lower socioeconomic background than people who are low on perceived Black stereotypicality, but rather, represents a larger societal bias that limits the opportunities of people

46 Perceived Stereotypicality 46 who are high on perceived Black stereotypicality. Research demonstrating the deleterious impact of perceived Black stereotypicality biases on the lives of Blacks has continued to accumulate (Hughes & Hertel, 1990; Hunter, 2002; Sidanius et al., 2001; Terkildsen, 1993; Wade & Bielitz, 2005; Wade, Romano, & Blue, 2004). Hughes and Hertel (1990) found a negative relationship between perceived Black stereotypicality and socioeconomic status and argued that the strength of this relationship has remained relatively stable over a 30 year period. One probable explanation for this finding is that people who are low on perceived Black stereotypicality are seen as more attractive (Hill, 2002; Wade & Bielitz, 2005) and are more likely to be hired (Wade et al., 2004) than their counterparts who are high on perceived Black stereotypicality. Interestingly, these biases also seem to occur within the Black community; financially-successful Blacks tend to marry partners who are lower on perceived Black stereotypicality than do less financially-successful Blacks (Freeman, Armor, Ross, & Pettigrew, 1966; Hunter, 2002). Perceived Black stereotypicality is a socially-relevant concept that continues to have a substantial influence on the lives of people who are Black. Perceived Stereotypicality and the Criminal Justice System Recently, scholars have begun to address perceived Black stereotypicality biases within the context of the criminal justice system (Blair, Judd, & Chapleau, 2004; T. L. Dixon & Maddox, 2005; Eberhardt et al., 2006; Kahn et al., 2008; for a review, see Pizzi, Blair, & Judd, 2005). These studies have demonstrated that differences in perceived Black stereotypicality influence the manner in which suspects are treated by the criminal justice system starting from when the perceiver assesses whether or not a crime is being committed (Kahn et al., 2008), moving to the assessment of the suspect s culpability (Eberhardt, Goff, Purdie, & Davies, 2004), and concluding with the subsequent sentencing of the alleged perpetrator (Blair, Judd, &

47 Perceived Stereotypicality 47 Chapleau, 2004; Eberhardt et al., 2006). Such findings call into question the legitimacy of the criminal justice system and motivate the current discussion to take a closer look at this newlyemerging literature. In a particularly troubling study addressing perceived Black stereotypicality biases in the criminal justice system, Eberhardt and colleagues (2006) assessed the impact of perceived Black stereotypicality on the likelihood a suspect would receive the death penalty when convicted of a capital offense. The authors located over 600 criminal cases that were death-eligible and had naïve participants rate a subset of mug-shots based on perceived Black stereotypicality. After controlling for a variety of factors known to affect criminal sentencing outcomes, the authors found that Black defendants who were high on perceived Black stereotypicality were nearly twice as likely as Black defendants who were low on perceived Black stereotypicality to receive the death penalty. Interestingly, this effect only occurred for defendants who were tried for crimes involving White victims. That is, the effect was NOT seen for Black-on-Black crimes. The authors suggested that this sentencing disparity may be due to the higher salience of race in the case of cross-race crimes involving a White victim and Black defendant. Perceived Black stereotypicality has also been shown to affect how crime suspects are treated by the media. Though news outlets generally over-represent Blacks and other minorities as violent criminals (T. L. Dixon, Azocar, & Casas, 2003; Gilliam & Iyengar, 2000), Blacks who are high on perceived Black stereotypicality may be particularly susceptible to this bias. To investigate this possibility, Dixon and Maddox (2005) had participants watch a short fictional target news story about a local murder that was embedded in a longer news broadcast. All versions of the target news story were identical to one another except for the suspect s level of perceived Black stereotypicality, which was conveyed by briefly showing a photograph of the

48 Perceived Stereotypicality 48 suspect during the broadcast. Specifically, the suspect was depicted as either White, low on perceived Black stereotypicality, moderate on perceived Black stereotypicality, or high on perceived Black stereotypicality. After watching the entire broadcast, participants were asked questions about their response to, and memory of, the target news story. Results showed that the suspect who was high on perceived Black stereotypicality elicited higher levels of concern and was seen as more memorable than the suspect who was White. Moreover, these results were particularly pronounced among participants who were heavy consumers of news (i.e., those who had well-formed stereotypes about criminals in the media). Moving towards judgments of culpability, police officers rate photographs of Blacks who are high on perceived Black stereotypicality as appearing more criminal than photographs of Blacks who are low on perceived Black stereotypicality (Eberhardt et al., 2004). Likewise, studies using a videogame paradigm show that Blacks who are high on perceived Black stereotypicality are more likely to be mistakenly seen as carrying a gun and subsequently shot than Blacks who are low on perceived Black stereotypicality (Kahn et al., 2008). Finally, people convicted of a crime who are high on perceived Black stereotypicality receive more punitive criminal sentences than their counterparts who are low on perceived Black stereotypicality, all else being equal (Blair, Judd, & Chapleau, 2004; Eberhardt et al., 2006). Taken together, these studies suggest that perceived Black stereotypicality biases influence how people who are Black are treated at all stages in the criminal justice system. Mechanisms Responsible for Perceived Black Stereotypicality Effects Because the literature on perceived stereotypicality in social psychology is in its infancy, relatively few studies have been conducted to identify the mechanism(s) through which the perceived Black stereotypicality effects emerge. That said, the work that has been done to

49 Perceived Stereotypicality 49 address this issue has produced results that are worthy of mention. Namely, the work done by Maddox and his colleagues (Maddox, 2004; Maddox & Chase, 2004; Maddox & Gray, 2002) suggests that perceived Black stereotypicality effects result from the same basic processes that give rise to stereotyping. Specifically, perceived Black stereotypicality appears to serve as an effective social category through which people are capable of organizing their social world (Maddox & Chase, 2004; Maddox & Gray, 2002). That is, perceived Black stereotypicality is a relevant social category that people use to help organize and make sense of their social interactions. As such, perceived Black stereotypicality works in a manner similar to stereotypes. In the first study to address this issue, Maddox and Gray (2002) had participants watch a series of discussions between members of a group who varied either by race (Black vs. White) or by level of perceived stereotypicality (high vs. low). Participants were then provided with written statements derived from the discussion and asked to match each statement with a photograph of the group member responsible for making the statement. The type of errors made while matching the statements served as the primary dependent variable in this study. Specifically, participants could make two types of errors: 1) an error by which participants mistakenly attributed a statement made by someone who was high (low) on perceived Black stereotypicality to someone else who was also high (low) on perceived Black stereotypicality (i.e., a within-group error) or 2) an error by which participants mistakenly attributed a statement made by someone who was high (low) on perceived Black stereotypicality to someone else who was low (high) on perceived Black stereotypicality (i.e., a between-group error). More within-group errors than betweengroup errors would indicate that participants organized, at least implicitly, the discussion in accordance with the group members categorization (i.e., their level of perceived Black stereotypicality).

50 Perceived Stereotypicality 50 Consistent with the hypothesis that perceived Black stereotypicality serves as a meaningful category by which people organize information, Maddox and Gray (2002) found that participants made more within-group than between-group errors. That is, participants were more likely to mistakenly attribute a statement to someone of the same level of perceived Black stereotypicality than they were to someone of a different level of perceived Black stereotypicality. Importantly, the type of group composition (i.e., race-based vs. perceived Black stereotypicality-based) did not moderate the effect, suggesting that perceived Black stereotypicality was as useful a category for participants as was race. This suggests that racebased and perceived Black stereotypicality-based effects function in a similar manner. Moreover, the results imply that people are capable of using perceived Black stereotypicality as a category through which they can organize their social world. Subsequent research has further explored the cognitive aspects of perceived Black stereotypicality bias. This research has demonstrated that people who are high on perceived Black stereotypicality are seen as more representative of their racial group (i.e., Blacks) than people who are low on perceived Black stereotypicality (Blair, Judd, & Fallman, 2004; Blair et al., 2002; Livingston & Brewer, 2002; Maddox & Gray, 2002). Moreover, the tendency to assume that people who are high on perceived Black stereotypicality are more representative of Blacks than people who are low on perceived Black stereotypicality has been shown to be exacerbated when people cognitive resources are depleted (Blair, Judd, & Fallman, 2004). Finally, Livingston and Brewer (2002) demonstrated that people are quicker at determining the racial category of a target who is high on perceived Black stereotypicality than a target who is low on perceived Black stereotypicality, suggesting that perceived Black stereotypicality serves as a more efficient cue of one s race than indicators that are thought to be more traditional. This

51 Perceived Stereotypicality 51 has led some to argue that stereotyping occurs as a result of perceived Black stereotypicality and not racial categories per se (e.g., Livingston & Brewer, 2002; Pizzi et al., 2005). Perhaps the most troubling aspect of perceived Black stereotypicality biases is the relative lack of control perceivers have over stopping the influence it has on subsequent judgments (Blair, Judd, & Fallman, 2004; for a review in the context of the judicial system, see Pizzi et al., 2005). In investigating this issue, Blair and colleagues (Blair, Judd, & Fallman, 2004) had participants read four descriptions that were either stereotypic or counter-stereotypic of Blacks. Participants then viewed 40 separate photographs of people who varied in their level of perceived Black stereotypicality. While viewing the photographs, participants were asked to estimate the probability that each description was an accurate depiction of the person shown in the photograph. Consistent with the perceived Black stereotypicality biases reported above, the participants in Blair and colleagues (Blair, Judd, & Fallman, 2004) study indicated that the stereotypic descriptions were more likely to be true of the faces that were high on perceived Black stereotypicality than the faces that were low on perceived Black stereotypicality. The opposite was true of counter-stereotypic descriptions; counter-stereotypic descriptions were seen as more likely to be true of the faces that were low on perceived Black stereotypicality than the faces that were high on perceived Black stereotypicality. Surprisingly, participants who were warned to avoid stereotyping based on perceived Black stereotypicality (Study 3) and who had previously-demonstrated an understanding of perceived Black stereotypicality (Study 4) still stereotyped the targets based on perceived Black stereotypicality. Such results suggest that perceived Black stereotypicality biases are particularly powerful, as they exert an automatic influence on the perceiver that is difficult to control.

52 Perceived Stereotypicality 52 Summary Perceived stereotypicality, or the degree to which a person is seen to possess the prototypical features of one s racial group, has been demonstrated to have a profound influence on the life chances of people living in the United States. Indeed, evidence dating back to the period of slavery suggests that perceived Black stereotypicality played an influential role in determining the status and treatment of people with African ancestry (Drake & Cayton, 1962; Frazier, 1957; Kotlikoff, 1979; Landry, 1987; Myrdal, 1944; Russell et al., 1993). Rather than subsiding in the post-civil Rights era, research has demonstrated that perceived Black stereotypicality biases continue to have a profound impact on people s lives (Hill, 2000; Hughes & Hertel, 1990; Wade et al., 2004). Important to the current discussion, this research also shows that perceived Black stereotypicality biases influence the treatment of Blacks within the criminal justice system (Blair, Judd, & Chapleau, 2004; Eberhardt et al., 2006; Kahn et al., 2008). Such findings demonstrate the utility of the concept and suggest that perceived Black stereotypicality may have serious implications for other domains within the criminal justice system, a topic to which we now briefly turn. Theoretical Integration With the exception of the current endeavor, research on perceived stereotypicality, stereotypes and memory, and eyewitness identification have been disparate literatures. This is unfortunate, as a theoretical integration of these separate programs of research could potentially provide insight into the process through which errors in eyewitness identification occur. In the section that follows, I briefly outline a proposed contextual model of identification accuracy that integrates these three separate literatures into a single model explaining errors in eyewitness identification. In doing so, I hope to provide scholars and people involved in the criminal justice

53 Perceived Stereotypicality 53 system with a useful framework for understanding how crime types matter in the process of eyewitness identification. It is only by developing a comprehensive understanding of the factors that affect eyewitness accuracy that we can begin to create and implement procedures designed to reduce the errors that occur during the identification process. Contextual Model of Identification Accuracy A proposed contextual model of identification accuracy is presented in Figure 3. The model starts with the palpable, yet novel, assumption that crime types matter in the case of eyewitness identification. Specifically, the crime type is hypothesized to activate corresponding racial stereotypes about the likely appearance of a suspect. In the context of a White crime (i.e., stereotypically-white crimes such as serial killing and internet hacking; see Osborne, Davies, & Eberhardt, 2007), stereotypes about Whites should be particularly salient. Conversely, in the context of a Black crime (i.e., stereotypically-black crimes such as drive-by shootings and armed robbery; see Osborne et al., 2007), stereotypes about Blacks should be particularly salient. Once activated, these stereotypes are hypothesized to influence the identification accuracy of the perpetrator, as indexed by eyewitnesses memory of the perceived stereotypicality of the perpetrator (i.e., the extent to which eyewitnesses memory of the perpetrator shifts towards prototypical members of a given group). In short, crime types are hypothesized to indirectly affect identification accuracy through the activation of corresponding racial stereotypes about the appearance of the likely perpetrator. Justification for the proposed model comes from an integration of the three separate literatures reviewed above. Specifically, the crime type (i.e., whether it is a stereotypically-white crime or a stereotypically-black crime) is assumed to provide a schema through which eyewitnesses process and organize information. As such, crime types should orient eyewitnesses

54 Perceived Stereotypicality 54 attention toward schema-consistent information (Martin & Halverson, 1981). Since perceived stereotypicality is in essence a visual stereotype, crime types should focus eyewitnesses attention on features of perceived stereotypicality (i.e., on physical features that are perceived to be prototypical of the group for which the crime type is most associated). This should lead eyewitnesses to remember a perpetrator as appearing higher or lower on perceived stereotypicality, depending on the given crime type. The hypothesis that crime types will affect eyewitnesses memory of the perceived stereotypicality of the perpetrator is further suggested by research showing that stereotypeconsistent information is favored over stereotype-inconsistent information during recall (Koomen & Dijker, 1997). This should cause eyewitnesses to recall stereotype-consistent features (i.e., features that are high on perceived stereotypicality) as a function of the given crime type. A stereotypically-black crime should cause eyewitnesses to recall features of the perpetrator that are high on perceived Black stereotypicality, while a stereotypically-white crime should cause eyewitnesses to recall features of the same perpetrator that are high on perceived White stereotypicality. This processes is even more tenable, given that past research has shown that people recall stereotype-consistent information even when such information was not present (Araya et al., 2003; Roediger & McDermott, 1995). This suggests that basic memory processes may cause eyewitnesses to recall seeing features that are high (or low) on perceived stereotypicality even if the perpetrator did not possess them. The contextual model of identification accuracy relies on an additional assumption that crime types activate corresponding racial stereotypes. That is, in order for crime types to cause eyewitnesses to alter their memory of the perceived stereotypicality of the perpetrator, the crime type must activate corresponding racial stereotypes about the appearance of the likely

55 Perceived Stereotypicality 55 perpetrator. As such, eyewitnesses memory of the perceived stereotypicality of the perpetrator should be mediated by stereotype activation. In sum, identification accuracy, as indexed by eyewitnesses memory of the perceived stereotypicality of the perpetrator, should be influenced by the extent to which a given crime type activates corresponding racial stereotypes of the likely perpetrator. The contextual model of identification accuracy is also capable of integrating past research on the effect of concurrent and post-occurrence variables on eyewitness memory. Specifically, the model posits that concurrent variables such as the presence of a weapon (Loftus et al., 1987) and arousal level (Brigham et al., 1983; Deffenbacher et al., 2004) may strengthen the relationship between crime types and stereotype activation (for demonstrations of the impact cognitive load has on stereotyping, see Blair, Judd, & Fallman, 2004; Sherman et al., 2003; van Knippenberg et al., 1999), thereby leading to a decrease in identification accuracy. Likewise, post-occurrence variables such as lineup construction (Cutler & Penrod, 1988) and lineup instructions (Cutler et al., 1987) may strengthen the impact already-activated stereotypes have on identification accuracy. While it is also likely that the very process of remembering the crime type could reactivate stereotypes and thereby allow post-occurrence variables to moderate the impact of crime types on eyewitness identification, future research needs to be done to determine if errors in encoding or retrieval (or both) are responsible for the hypothesized impact crime types have on eyewitnesses memory of the perceived stereotypicality of the perpetrator. Summary A contextual model of identification accuracy is proposed that attempts to explain errors in eyewitness identification in terms of crime types and their corresponding racial stereotypes. Such a model offers a new integration of the literatures on perceived stereotypicality, stereotypes

56 Perceived Stereotypicality 56 and memory, and eyewitness memory. The central thesis of this model is that crime types affect eyewitnesses memory of a perpetrator. Importantly, the contextual model of identification accuracy argues that both concurrent and post-occurrence variables can moderate the accuracy of eyewitness identification, but at different stages during the identification process. Such a model has the potential to increase our understanding of eyewitness identifications and has important implications for the criminal justice system. These topics are addressed in the final section of this paper. Implications Given that errors in eyewitness identification have been shown to play a predominate role in the wrongful conviction of others (Connors et al., 1996; Innocence Project, 2008a), the implications of the abovementioned discussion are profound. Specifically, it is possible that crime types systematically affect eyewitnesses ability to identify perpetrators. Namely, eyewitnesses to a stereotypically-black crime may remember the perpetrator as appearing higher on perceived Black stereotypicality than if the same perpetrator was seen committing a stereotypically-white crime. The current project thus offers an addition to the literature in psychology and the law that is of practical importance, as identifying the factors that contribute to errors in eyewitness memory is essential to reducing the risks associated with errors in eyewitness identification. By understanding the factors that contribute to errors in eyewitness identification, scholars and others involved in the criminal justice system can take proactive measures to safeguard against possible false alarms. This may be one of the only effective ways to adequately inform jurors and other key players in the criminal justice system about the potential pitfalls of eyewitness identification. In addition to identifying another potential factor that contributes to errors in eyewitness

57 Perceived Stereotypicality 57 memory, investigating the impact crime types have on eyewitness memory could advance the literature on perceived stereotypicality and the legal system. Specifically, past research has traditionally used perceived stereotypicality as an independent or predictor variable (Averhart & Bigler, 1997; Blair, Judd, & Chapleau, 2004; T. L. Dixon & Maddox, 2005; Eberhardt et al., 2006; Sidanius et al., 2001; Terkildsen, 1993). That is, researchers have traditionally manipulated or used natural variations in a target s level of perceived stereotypicality in order to predict subsequent evaluations of the target (for an exception, see Corneille, Huart, Becquart, & Bredart, 2004). The current paper, in contrast, argues that perceived stereotypicality can also be effectively employed as a dependent variable. Specifically, information imbued by a given situation (e.g., crime types) may cause people to remember a target as appearing more (or less) representative of his/her racial group. Such an approach could advance the literature on perceived stereotypicality by showing that aspects of a target s physical features can also be understood as the effect of some prior causal variable(s). Finally, investigating the impact crime types have on eyewitness memory introduces the field of psychology and the law to a much more social psychological approach than is currently seen. Specifically, the approach advocated in the current paper suggests that crime types are likely to influence eyewitness memory. That is, if eyewitnesses see a person commit a stereotypically-white crime, their memory of the perpetrator s appearance may shift toward features that are perceived to be Euro-centric. Conversely, if eyewitnesses see a person commit a stereotypically-black crime, their memory of the perpetrator s appearance may shift toward features that are perceived to be Afro-centric. Such an approach recognizes the importance of the situation and stresses the fact that different contexts are likely to have different effects on the identification process. This is an invaluable addition to the field of psychology and the law and

58 Perceived Stereotypicality 58 opens up a plethora of additional variables worthy of investigation. While it may be true that there is nothing more convincing than eyewitness testimony (Loftus, 1979, p. 19, emphasis in the original), the research reviewed above suggests that this may not always be for the best. Proposed Studies This program of research is guided by two goals. The primary goal is to assess the impact crime types have on eyewitness memory. Specifically, this research seeks to find an answer to the following question: does the type of crime an eyewitness is exposed to systematically influence his or her memory of the perpetrator s appearance? Assuming that crime types do affect eyewitness memory, a secondary goal of this program of research is to explore the underlying cause of this effect. That is, is the impact of crime types due to errors that occur during the encoding or the retrieval stage of information processing? In other words, do crime types affect the way information is processed as the crime occurs (i.e., the way information is encoded), or do crime types affect the type (and content) of information that is remembered after the crime occurs (i.e., the way information is retrieved)? Study 1 will address this first goal, while Study 2 will address the second. It is hoped that this program of research will help the scientific community achieve a better understanding of the variables that can affect the accuracy of eyewitness identifications. Study 1 In order to achieve the primary goal of this program of research, Study 1 will propose and test an integration of the literatures on eyewitness memory, stereotype-consistent memory biases, and biases based on perceived stereotypicality. Specifically, the hypothesis that crime types affect the accuracy of eyewitness identification will be tested using a between-participants experimental design in which participants are randomly assigned to watch a stimulus video of a

59 Perceived Stereotypicality 59 target suspect accused of one of the following crime types: a stereotypically-black crime, a stereotypically-white crime, or a control event (i.e., no crime). In actuality, participants will watch identical videos that vary only by the type of crime the target suspect is accused of committing. Participants will then complete an identification task in which the target suspect s appearance will vary from low-to-high perceived Black stereotypicality. If crime types affect eyewitness memory, then the type of stimulus video the participants watch should systematically influence their memory of the target suspect. Specifically, the type of stimulus video the participants watch should influence their memory of the perceived stereotypicality of the target suspect. Participants who watch the stereotypically-black crime stimulus video should recall the target suspect as appearing higher on perceived Black stereotypicality than participants who watch 1) the stereotypically-white crime stimulus video or 2) the control stimulus video. Likewise, participants who watch the stereotypically-white crime stimulus video should recall the target suspect as appearing lower on perceived Black stereotypicality than participants who watch 1) the stereotypically-black crime stimulus video or 2) the control stimulus video. In other words, participants should recall the appearance of the target suspect in a stereotype-consistent manner (Araya et al., 2003; Martin & Halverson, 1981, 1983; McDermott, 1996; Roediger & McDermott, 1995). In addition to the hypothesis that crime types affect eyewitness memory, Study 1 will also test auxiliary hypotheses that broadly fall into the following three categories: 1) evaluations of the target, 2), influence of contact and 3) impact of general identification accuracy. These auxiliary hypotheses are described in greater detail below. Auxiliary hypothesis 1: Evaluations of the target suspect. The first auxiliary hypothesis to be tested in Study 1 will be that crime types affect subsequent evaluations of the target suspect.

60 Perceived Stereotypicality 60 Because individuals demonstrate stereotype-consistent memory biases (Araya et al., 2003; Koomen & Dijker, 1997; Martin & Halverson, 1983; McDermott, 1996) and individuals who are perceived to be high on Black stereotypicality are negatively stereotyped to a greater extent than individuals who are perceived to be low on Black stereotypicality (Blair, Judd, & Fallman, 2004; Blair et al., 2002; Maddox & Gray, 2002), participants who watch the stereotypically-black crime stimulus video should evaluate the target suspect more negatively than participants who watch 1) the stereotypically-white crime stimulus video or 2) the control stimulus video. This should manifest itself in three separate evaluations of the target suspect. Specifically, participants who watch a stereotypically-black crime should recall the target suspect as being more 1) suspicious, 2) dangerous, and 3) guilty than participants who watch the stereotypically-white crime stimulus video or the control stimulus video. This would replicate and extend Eberhardt and colleagues (2004) findings by showing that not only are Black faces high on perceived Black stereotypicality seen as more criminal than Black faces low on perceived Black stereotypicality, but that one s memory of perceived Black stereotypicality also affects perceptions of criminality. Auxiliary hypothesis 2: Influence of contact. Study 1 will also seek to identify a potential moderator of the impact crime types have on participants memory of the perceived Black stereotypicality of the target suspect. Specifically, it is possible that contact with Blacks moderates the impact crime types have on eyewitness identifications. That is, increased contact with Blacks may help non-blacks develop skills that help them process the faces of Blacks more efficiently than if they had little or no contact with Blacks. This should ultimately make participants who have more contact with Blacks less susceptible to the hypothesized impact crime types have on eyewitness memory than participants who have less contact with Blacks. On

61 Perceived Stereotypicality 61 the other hand, research on the CRE indicates that contact has little-to-no influence on the accuracy of cross-race identifications (Brigham et al., 1983; Malpass & Kravitz, 1969; D. B. Wright et al., 2001). Given this discrepancy, Auxiliary hypothesis 2 will be exploratory in nature. Auxiliary hypothesis 3: Impact of general identification accuracy. The final auxiliary hypothesis to be tested in Study 1 will address the impact individual differences in the ability to remember faces have on the accuracy of eyewitness identification. Specifically, it is likely that some individuals are better than others at recalling the facial features of the target suspect. As such, participants who are more proficient at remembering faces should be less affected by crime types than participants who are less proficient at remembering faces. This would extend the hypothesized findings of Study 1, as well as the literature on eyewitness memory, by demonstrating that individual differences can also affect the accuracy of eyewitness identifications. Methods Participants One hundred and twenty undergraduate participants will be recruited from the psychology participant pool at the University of California, Los Angeles to participate in the proposed study in exchange for course credit. Because past research has shown that the identification of a cross-race suspect operates differently than the identification of a same-race suspect (e.g., Hills & Lewis, 2006), the proposed study will only include participants who are of a different race than the target suspect. That is, participants who are Black will be excluded from participating in the proposed study. This will be the only criterion for exclusion. Design

62 Perceived Stereotypicality 62 The proposed study will be a 3 (Crime Type: Stereotypically-Black crime; Stereotypically-White crime; Control) X 2 (Order of Identification Task: Low-to-high perceived Black stereotypicality; High-to-low perceived Black stereotypicality) between-participants design. Random assignment will ensure that each of the six conditions contain approximately 20 participants. Recollection of the perceived Black stereotypicality of the target will serve as the primary dependent variable for the proposed study and will be measured as a continuous variable. Materials Three nearly-identical 19-second stimulus videos, five practice identification tasks, two suspect identification tasks, a 12-item cued-recall task, and a 14-item demographic questionnaire will be developed for the proposed study. Stimulus videos. Prior to developing the stimulus videos, 47 crimes were pretested in order to identify stereotypically-black crimes and stereotypically-white crimes. Specifically, 33 undergraduate participants from the University of California, Los Angeles evaluated 47 separate crimes on the following 3 dimensions in exchange for course credit: 1) seriousness of the crime, 2) violence associated with the crime, and 3) the likely race of the suspect (Black or White). Each dimension used a 7-point Likert scale with anchors at 1 (Not at all/definitely Black) and 7 (Very/Definitely White). A series of paired-samples t-tests were then ran to identify crimes that differed only in respect to the likely race of the suspect. Results from these analyses suggested that drive-by shooting and serial killing matched our criterion for stereotypically-black and stereotypically-white crimes, respectively. Specifically, participants evaluated drive-by shooting and serial killing as equally 1) serious (M = 6.67, SD = 0.74 vs. M = 6.82, SD = 0.88, respectively), t(32) = 1.30, p =.20, and 2) violent

63 Perceived Stereotypicality 63 (M = 6.67, SD = 0.74 vs. M = 6.76, SD = 1.00, respectively), t(32) = 0.45, p =.65. Most importantly, however, drive-by shooters were seen as more likely to be Black than serial killers (M = 1.64, SD = 0.60 vs. M = 5.27, SD = 1.40, respectively), t(32) = 12.77, p <.01. Follow-up analyses using a one-sample t-test confirmed that drive-by shooting was seen as a stereotypically-black crime relative to the midpoint of the scale, t(32) = 22.52, p <.01, and that serial killing was seen as a stereotypically-white crime relative to the midpoint of the scale, t(32) = 5.23, p <.01. As such, the proposed study will use drive-by shooting and serial killing as the stereotypically-black crime and the stereotypically-white crime, respectively. After identifying a stereotypically-black crime and a stereotypically-white crime, three nearly-identical 19-second stimulus videos of a Black man (i.e., the target suspect) leaving an ambiguous building will be developed for the proposed study (see Appendix A). Each video will contain 13 slides measuring 4.30 wide X 3.55 tall and will be played on a Dell Inspiron E1405 laptop using Adobe (2009) Flash Player version The first slide of the stimulus video will be entirely white (i.e., a blank slide) and will be displayed for 1 second. This will be immediately followed by one of the following three target slides: 1) a text-only slide listing a stereotypically- Black crime (i.e., a drive-by shooting; the stereotypically-black crime stimulus video), 2) a textonly slide listing a stereotypically-white crime (i.e., serial killing; the stereotypically-white crime stimulus video), or 3) a text-only control slide (i.e., no crime will be listed; the control stimulus video). The respective target slide will be displayed for 5 seconds. After presenting one of the three target slides, the stimulus video will display 3 slides that countdown from 3. This will be followed by the presentation of 6 sequential pictures of the target suspect leaving a building and a single blank slide. The 3 countdown slides, 6 pictures, and single blank slide will each be displayed for 1 second. The final slide in the stimulus video will

64 Perceived Stereotypicality 64 be a text-only slide and will contain one of two possible messages. For the stereotypically-black crime and the stereotypically-white crime stimulus videos, the final slide will state the following: End of Surveillance Video. For the control stimulus video, the final slide will state the following: End of Video. The respective final slide will be displayed for 3 seconds. With the exception of the target and final slides, the stimulus videos will be identical to one another in both content and duration. Practice identification tasks. FantaMorph version 4.0 (Abrosoft, 2007) will be used to develop five separate practice identification tasks for the proposed study (see Appendix B). FantaMorph is a computer software program that seamlessly-transforms (i.e., morphs) one photograph into another photograph by creating a series of naturally-looking intermediate slides. For example, FantaMorph can take a photograph of person A and morph it into a photograph of person B so that the person displayed at any given intermediate slide will appear real/natural. FantaMorph also allows users to determine the number of intermediate slides used to create the morph, as well as the speed at which photograph A is morphed into photograph B. As such, the resulting morphs parallel traditional response latency tasks in that each intermediate slide can be used to represent the passage of a given unit of time. Each of the five practice identification tasks will require the development of the following pairs of stimuli: 1) a practice morph and 2) a corresponding practice target. Each practice morph will be created by taking two separate mug-shot style photographs of college aged men (5 Black men; 5 White men). All of the men will be photographed displaying a neutral expression. FantaMorph (Abrosoft, 2007) will then be used to morph a random one of these two photographs into the remaining photograph. That is, either photograph A will be morphed into photograph B, or photograph B will be morphed into photograph A. This procedure will be used

65 Perceived Stereotypicality 65 to develop all five practice morphs. The resulting practice morphs will be approximately 5.95 wide X 7.48 tall 5 and will consist of 100 slides (the actual photographs will serve as the 1 st and 100 th slides, respectively, while the 98 intermediate slides will be created by FantaMorph). Each practice morph will be programmed to take 10 seconds to completely morph from the 1 st slide to the 100 th slide. As such, each individual slide will be displayed for 1/10 th of a second. Once the practice morph is created, a practice target will be developed by selecting a random intermediate slide from the corresponding practice morph. After the five practice morphs and five practice targets have been created, five practice identification tasks will be developed for the proposed study. Specifically, the identification task will consist of an initial presentation of the practice target. Participants will then attempt to identify the practice target from a corresponding practice morph. This will be done by clicking a computer mouse when the practice morph most-closely resembles the corresponding practice target. Longer response times will indicate that the participant remembered the practice target as being closer in appearance to the second stimulus photo (i.e., the 100 th slide) than the first stimulus photo (i.e., the 1 st slide). Suspect identification tasks. FantaMorph version 4.0 (Abrosoft, 2007) will be used to develop two separate suspect identification tasks for the proposed study (see Appendix C). Both suspect identification tasks will first require the development of two separate suspect morphs. Each suspect morph will be created by taking three separate mug-shot style photographs of college-aged men. The first photograph will be of a Black man who is low on perceived Black stereotypicality. The second photograph will be of a Black man who is high on perceived Black 5 Due to subtle/unavoidable differences in the stimulus photographs, the actual sizes of the practice morphs vary slightly. These small variations, however, are unperceivable.

66 Perceived Stereotypicality 66 stereotypicality. The third and final photograph will be of the target suspect shown in the stimulus video. The target suspect will be moderate on perceived Black stereotypicality (i.e., his level of perceived Black stereotypicality will be in between the first two men). All of the men will be photographed displaying a neutral expression. Pretesting will ensure that the men do not differ in their level of attractiveness. FantaMorph will then be used to create the following two morphs: 1) a low-to-high suspect morph in which the photographs are morphed from low to moderate to high perceived Black stereotypicality and 2) a high-to-low morph in which the photographs are morphed from high to moderate to low perceived Black stereotypicality. The resulting suspect morphs will be 5.94 wide X 7.56 tall 6 and will consist of 100 slides. For the low-to-high suspect morphs, the actual photograph of the person low on perceived Black stereotypicality will serve as the 1 st slide and the actual photograph of the person high on perceived Black stereotypicality will serve as the 100 th slide. The positioning of the photographs will be reversed for the high-to-low suspect morph. In both versions of the suspect morph, the target suspect will serve as the midpoint (i.e., the 50 th slide). FantaMorph (Abrosoft, 2007) will create the 2 nd through the 49 th slides and the 51 st through the 99 th slides for both versions of the suspect morph. Both suspect morphs will be programmed to take 10 seconds to completely morph from the 1 st slide to the 100 th slide. As such, each individual slide will be displayed for 1/10 th of a second. After the two suspect morphs have been created, two suspect identification tasks will be developed for the proposed study. Specifically, the suspect identification task will ask participants to identify the target suspect shown in the stimulus video. Participants will then identify the target suspect from either 1) the low-to-high suspect morph or 2) the high-to-low 6 Due to subtle/unavoidable differences in the stimulus photographs, the actual sizes of the practice morphs and the suspect morphs vary slightly. These small variations, however, are unperceivable.

67 Perceived Stereotypicality 67 suspect morph (reverse-scored). This will be done by clicking a computer mouse when the suspect morph most-closely resembles participants memory of the target suspect. Longer response times will indicate that the participant recalls the target suspect s appearance as being higher on perceived Black stereotypicality. Cued-recall task. A 12-item cued-recall task will be developed for the proposed study. This 12-item cued-recall task will assess the following three themes: 1) participants factual memory of the stimulus video, 2) participants evaluations of the target suspect, and 3) participants reception of the treatment/manipulation (i.e., a manipulation check). The first four items will assess participants factual memory of the stimulus video. Two of these items will ask participants to indicate the color of the target suspect s shirt (red, blue, grey, green, or purple) and the color of the building in the background (grey red, white, or yellow). The remaining two items will ask participants to indicate 1) if there were any trees and 2) if there was a vehicle in the background of the stimulus video. These two items will be evaluated on a 7-point Likert scale with anchors at 1 (Definitely) and 7 (Definitely not). Higher values on these two items will indicate higher relative levels of accuracy in participants factual memory of the stimulus video. Seven additional items will be developed to assess participants evaluation of the target suspect. Specifically, participants will be asked to indicate how 1) attractive, 2) suspicious (reverse-scored), 3) dangerous, 4) guilty (reverse-scored), and 5) familiar the target suspect was in the stimulus video. These items will be evaluated on a 7-point Likert scale with anchors at 1 (Very) and 7 (Not at all; reverse-scored items will reverse the anchors). Higher scores on these items will indicate participants perception that the target suspect possessed more of the given characteristic. The sixth and seventh items from this theme will ask participants if they have seen the target suspect before (yes or no) and, if so, to indicate where they have seen the target suspect

68 Perceived Stereotypicality 68 (open-ended response). The final item on the cued-recall task will serve as a manipulation check. Specifically, the item will ask participants to indicate which of the following crimes the target suspect was suspected of committing: serial killing, shoplifting, trespassing, drive-by shooting, or there was no crime. Demographic questionnaire. A 14-item demographic questionnaire will be developed for the proposed study. These items will assess the following five themes: 1) basic background information, 2) contact with Blacks, 3) religious background and self-perceived religiosity, 4) political affiliation and self-perceived political ideology, and 5) a probe for suspicion. The first five items will assess the participants basic background information. Specifically, participants will be asked to indicate their sex (male or female), age (open-ended response), race/ethnicity (Asian, Black, Latino/a, Middle Eastern, White, other), year in their university education (1 st, 2 nd, 3 rd, 4 th, or graduate), and major (open-ended response). The next three items will assess participants contact with Blacks. The first of these items will ask participants to indicate the number of friends they have who are Black. This item will be rated on a 7-point Likert scale with anchors at 1 (No Black friends) and 7 (More than 6 Black friends). The second item will ask participants to indicate the racial composition of their neighborhood. This item will be rated on a 7-point Likert scale with anchors at 1 (Entirely White) and 7 (Entirely Black). The final item will be a reverse-scored item asking participants to indicate how much personal contact they have with Blacks. This item will be rated on a 7-point Likert scale with anchors at 1 (Lots of contact) and 7 (No contact). Higher scores on items from this theme will indicate more contact with Blacks. Two additional items will be developed to assess participants religious background and

69 Perceived Stereotypicality 69 self-perceived religiosity. The first item will ask participants to indicate their religious affiliation (Buddhist, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Protestant, other, or none). The remaining item from this theme will ask participants to indicate their self-perceived religiosity. Specifically, participants will be asked to indicate how much they agree or disagree with the following statement: I consider myself a religious individual. This item will be rated on a 7-point Likert scale with anchors at 1 (Strongly disagree) and 7 (Strongly agree). Higher values on this item will indicate greater levels of self-perceived religiosity. Two additional items will be developed to assess participants political affiliation and self-perceived political ideology. The first item will ask participants to indicate their political affiliation (Republican, Democrat, Green Party, Generally Liberal, or Generally Conservative). The remaining item from this theme will ask participants to indicate their self-perceived political ideology. Specifically, participants will be asked to indicate how liberal or conservative they consider themselves. This item will be rated on a 7-point Likert scale with anchors at 1 (Very liberal) and 7 (Very conservative). Higher values on this item will indicate greater levels of selfperceived political conservatism. Finally, two items will be developed to probe for suspicion and to identify possible ways in which to improve the proposed study. For the first item, participants will be asked to guess the hypotheses of the proposed study (open-ended response). The final item will ask participants to provide any feedback about their experience with the proposed study. These items will be included to assess participants awareness of the hypotheses of the study and to discover any potential problems participants encountered while participating in the proposed study, respectively. Procedure

70 Perceived Stereotypicality 70 Participants will be individually-ran through the proposed study. Upon arriving at the experimental room, participants will be randomly-assigned to watch one of the three stimulus videos (i.e., either the stereotypically-black crime, the stereotypically-white crime, or the control stimulus videos). After watching the given stimulus video, participants will be asked to read an article by Baylor (1996) on perception and the visual system. Participants will be told that this article will help them understand the way visual information is processed and that such an understanding will help them perform a task that will be disclosed to them later in the study. In order to ensure that the article is taken seriously, participants will be told that they will be tested on their comprehension of the article at the conclusion of the study. In actuality, the article will serve as a distracter task and participants will not be tested on their comprehension of the article. Ten minutes into the distracter task, the experimenter will interrupt the participant by indicating that the time allotted to read the article has expired. Participants will be assured, however, that their inability to complete the article in the amount of time allotted is OK and that most participants are unable to complete the task. Participants will then be introduced to the practice identification tasks under the auspices that the study is interested in increasing the reliability of eyewitness memory. Specifically, participants will be told that, prior to identifying the target suspect, we would like to introduce you to a new tool that we hope will be used to help with eyewitness memory. The program allows operators to take photos of different people and create a video that seamlessly transitions between the different individuals. The main purpose of this program is to increase the accuracy of eyewitness memory. Specifically, by showing a range of appearances, the developers of the program hope to provide

71 Perceived Stereotypicality 71 eyewitnesses with more opportunities to differentiate between photos. That is, eyewitnesses will be able to make finer distinctions between photos using this new program. This should drastically improve the accuracy of eyewitness memory. While we feel that this program has great potential, it takes some practice for users to become comfortable with the task. As such, we would like to have you practice on five different individuals in order to familiarize yourself with the program. Once you have become comfortable with the program, we will ask you to identify the person shown in the previous task. After being exposed to the cover story, participants will be given instructions for the practice identification tasks. Specifically, participants will be told that they have 15 seconds to study the photograph of a practice target. Following this, they will try to identify the practice target from a corresponding practice morph. In order to increase the accuracy of participants identifications, participants will be shown the practice morph twice; the first viewing will expose participants to the entire range of appearances displayed in the practice morph, while the second viewing will allow participants to stop the practice morph when it is believed to most-closely resemble the corresponding practice target. The frame at which the participants stop the practice morph will be recorded and the task will be repeated until the participant has completed all five practice identifications. Following the completion of the five practice identifications, participants will be given instructions regarding the target identification task. Specifically, participants will be asked to identify the target suspect shown in the stimulus video via the suspect morph. As done during the practice identification tasks, participants will be shown the suspect morph twice; the first viewing will expose participants to the entire range of appearances displayed in the suspect

72 Perceived Stereotypicality 72 morph, while the second viewing will allow participants to stop the suspect morph when it is believed to most-closely resemble the target suspect shown in the stimulus video. In order to control for the possibility that participants are prone to respond too quickly (or too slowly) to the suspect morph, participants will be randomly assigned to complete the low-to-high suspect morph or the high-to-low suspect morph (reverse-scored). The frame at which the participants stop the suspect morph will be recorded and will be used as the primary dependent variable in the proposed study. After completing the suspect identification task, participants will be given the cued-recall task and the demographic questionnaire. Participants will be provided with unlimited time to complete these tasks. Upon completion of the cued-recall task and the demographic questionnaire, participants will be probed for suspicion. Following this, participants will be fully debriefed and informed of the true nature of the proposed study. Participants will then be thanked for their participation and given the appropriate contact information should any issues arise as a result of their participation in the proposed study. Plan of Analyses Data analyses for Study 1 will take place in the following three phases: 1) preliminary analyses, 2) main analyses, and 3) auxiliary analyses. The purpose of the preliminary analyses will be to ensure that participants received the treatment/primary experimental manipulation and to identify and correct for any potential outliers in the data. The purpose of the main and auxiliary analyses will be to test the main and auxiliary hypotheses, respectively. Each of these phases is explained in detail below. Preliminary Analyses The purpose of the preliminary analyses will be twofold. First off, preliminary analyses

73 Perceived Stereotypicality 73 will be conducted to ensure that participants received the treatment/experimental manipulation (i.e., to ensure that participants were aware of the specific crime type to which they were exposed during the stimulus video). Secondly, data will be screened and, if detected, corrected for potential outliers. Manipulation check. In order to ensure that only the participants who received the treatment/manipulation are included in the main and auxiliary analyses, participants responses to the manipulation check question will be analyzed. All participants who fail to correctly identify the type of crime the suspect was accused of committing will be excluded from subsequent analyses. This will ensure that only participants who received the treatment/manipulation (i.e., participants who noted the crime type to which they were exposed during the stimulus video) are included in the remainder of the data analyses for the proposed study. Violations of normality and/or outliers. After excluding participants who failed to receive the treatment/manipulation from the dataset (i.e., participants who incorrectly responded to the manipulation check question), data will be screened for violations of normality and potential outliers. Specifically, the skewness and kurtosis of the data will be inspected and, pending any violations of normality, will be subjected to the appropriate transformations. Following this, the data will be screened for potential outliers. If identified, outliers will be Winsorized so that extreme values are recoded to the next closest value (see W. J. Dixon, 1960). Data will then be re-inspected to ensure that this correction did not produce any violations of normality and that the outliers have been corrected from the dataset. After achieving an adequate solution to these potential problems, the data will be subjected to the main analyses of the proposed study. Main Analyses

74 Perceived Stereotypicality 74 The main hypothesis of Study 1 is that crime types affect eyewitness memory. Specifically, participants who watch the stereotypically-black crime stimulus video are expected to remember the target suspect as appearing higher on perceived Black stereotypicality than participants who watch 1) the stereotypically-white crime stimulus video or 2) the control stimulus video. Likewise, participants who watch the stereotypically-white crime stimulus video are expected to recall the target suspect as appearing lower on perceived Black stereotypicality than participants who watch 1) the stereotypically-black crime stimulus video or 2) the control stimulus video. In other words, there should be a main effect of crime type on participants memory of the perceived stereotypicality of the target suspect. In order to test this hypothesis, I will perform a 3 (Crime Type) X 2 (Order of Identification Task) analysis of variance (ANOVA) on participants target identifications. It is expected that these analyses will yield a main effect only for crime type (see Figure 4). That is, order should not influence participants performance on the target identification task. Moreover, order is not expected to interact with crime type. As such, order will be dropped as a factor from the subsequent analyses. In order to follow up on the hypothesized main effect of crime type, planned comparisons will be ran to compare the mean memory of the target suspect s perceived stereotypicality for participants who watched 1) the stereotypically-black crime stimulus video, 2) the stereotypically-white crime stimulus video, or 3) the control stimulus video. These analyses should indicate that all of the means are significantly different from one another. That is, participants who watch the stereotypically-black crime stimulus video should recall the perceived stereotypicality of the target suspect as being higher than participants who watch 1) the stereotypically-white crime stimulus video or 2) the control stimulus video. Likewise,

75 Perceived Stereotypicality 75 participants who watch the stereotypically-white crime stimulus video should recall the perceived stereotypicality of the target suspect as being lower than participants who watch 1) the stereotypically-black crime stimulus video or 2) the control stimulus video. Auxiliary Analyses The three auxiliary hypotheses of Study 1 are that 1) crime type will affect evaluations of the target suspect, 2) contact with Blacks will moderate the impact of crime type on identification accuracy of the target suspect, and 3) general identification accuracy will moderate the impact of crime type on identification accuracy. The statistical procedures that will be implemented to test each of these respective hypotheses are described below. Auxiliary hypothesis 1: Evaluations of the target suspect. The first auxiliary hypothesis is that crime type will affect evaluations of the target suspect. Specifically, participants who watch the stereotypically-black crime stimulus video are expected to evaluate the target suspect higher on indices of suspiciousness, dangerousness, and guilt. In order to test this hypothesis, I will conduct three separate one-way ANOVAs on participants evaluations of the degree to which the target suspect looks suspicious, dangerous, and guilty, respectively. These analyses should reveal a significant main effect of crime type (see Figure 5). Planned comparisons should reveal that participants who watch the stereotypically-black crime stimulus video evaluate the target suspect higher on each of the respective dimensions than participants who watch 1) the stereotypically- White crime stimulus video or 2) the control stimulus video. Auxiliary hypothesis 2: Influence of contact. The second auxiliary hypothesis in Study 1 is that contact with Blacks moderates the impact of crime type on participants memory of the perceived stereotypicality of the target suspect. This hypothesis will be tested by creating a regression model to explain participants memory of the perceived stereotypicality of the target

76 Perceived Stereotypicality 76 suspect. In order to do this, I will create two dummy variables for the crime type variable. Specifically, one dummy variable will be created in which participants who watch the stereotypically-black crime stimulus video will be coded as a 1 and everyone else will be coded as a 0. Another dummy variable will be created in which participants who watch the stereotypically-white crime stimulus video will be coded as a 1 and everyone else will be coded as a 0. Following this, two separate interaction terms will be created by multiplying the respective dummy variables with a scaled and centered version of the contact variables (i.e., the three contact variables will be summed to create an overall index of contact with Blacks. The mean of the scaled contact variable will then be subtracted from itself). The two dummy variables and the scaled contact measure will then be entered into the first block of the regression model and the interaction terms will be entered into the second block of the regression model. Finally, participants memory of the perceived stereotypicality of the target suspect will be regressed onto this model. The multiple regression equation will appear as follows: Ŷ = b 0 + b 1 (D 1 ) + b 2 (D 2 ) + b 3 (CONTACT) + b 4 (D 1 X CONTACT) + b 5 (D 2 X CONTACT) Where: Ŷ = the predicted memory of the perceived stereotypicality of the target suspect b 0 = the intercept (i.e., the mean for the control stimulus video) b 1 = the difference between b 0 and the mean of the stereotypically-black crime stimulus video b 2 = the difference between b 0 and the mean of the stereotypically-white crime stimulus video b 3 = slope for the control stimulus video b 4 = slope for the stereotypically-black crime stimulus video b 5 = slope for the stereotypically-white crime stimulus video D 1 = Dummy code (stereotypically-black crime stimulus video) D 2 = Dummy code (stereotypically-white crime stimulus video) The hypothetical results of this model are presented in Figure 6. Specifically, it is

77 Perceived Stereotypicality 77 expected that, as contact with Blacks becomes less frequent, participants who watch the stereotypically-black crime stimulus video should recall the target suspect as being higher on perceived Black stereotypicality. Conversely, as contact with Blacks becomes less frequent, participants who watch the stereotypically-white crime stimulus video should recall the target suspect as being lower on perceived Black stereotypicality. Finally, contact should have no impact on the recollection of the target suspect s level of perceived Black stereotypicality for participants who watch the control stimulus. In other words, the impact of crime type on recollections of the target suspect s perceived level of Black stereotypicality should be exacerbated by infrequent contact with Blacks. As suggested by Aiken and West (1991), simple slopes analyses will be conducted to confirm the nature of this hypothesized interaction. Auxiliary hypothesis 3: Impact of general identification accuracy. The third auxiliary hypothesis is that general identification accuracy will moderate the impact of crime type on participants memory of the perceived stereotypicality of the target suspect. In order to test this hypothesis, I will need to first compute an individual-difference measure of participants accuracy on the practice identification task. Specifically, the actual slide used to create the stimuli for each practice target will be subtracted from the slide at which the participant stopped the given practice identification task. For example, if the practice target used in the practice identification task was taken from slide 15 and the participant stopped the corresponding practice identification task at slide 20, this would yield a deviation score of +5 (i.e., = +5). Similar calculations would be conducted for the four remaining practice identification tasks and summed to create an individual-difference measure of general identification accuracy. Lower scores on the general identification accuracy measure would indicate higher rates of accuracy relative to higher scores on the general identification accuracy measure.

78 Perceived Stereotypicality 78 After creating the general identification accuracy measure, a regression model will be created to explain participants memory of the perceived stereotypicality of the target suspect. In order to do this, I will use the same two dummy variables for crime type used to test Auxiliary hypothesis 2. Two separate interaction terms will then be created by multiplying the respective dummy variables with a centered version of the general identification accuracy measure. The two dummy variables and the centered version of the general identification accuracy measure will then be entered into the first block of the regression model and the interaction terms will be entered into the second block of the regression model. Finally, participants memory of the perceived stereotypicality of the target suspect will be regressed onto this model. The multiple regression equation will appear as follows: Ŷ = b 0 + b 1 (D 1 ) + b 2 (D 2 ) + b 3 (ID ACC) + b 4 (D 1 X ID ACC) + b 5 (D 2 X ID ACC) Where: Ŷ = the predicted memory of the perceived stereotypicality of the target suspect b 0 = the intercept (i.e., the mean for the control stimulus video) b 1 = the difference between b 0 and the mean of the stereotypically-black crime stimulus video b 2 = the difference between b 0 and the mean of the stereotypically-white crime stimulus video b 3 = slope for the control stimulus video b 4 = slope for the stereotypically-black crime stimulus video b 5 = slope for the stereotypically-white crime stimulus video D 1 = Dummy code (stereotypically-black crime stimulus video) D 2 = Dummy code (stereotypically-white crime stimulus video) The results of this analysis are expected to parallel the hypothesized data presented in Figure 6. Specifically, it is expected that, as general identification accuracy becomes less accurate, participants who watch the stereotypically-black crime stimulus video should recall the target suspect as being higher on perceived Black stereotypicality. Conversely, as general

79 Perceived Stereotypicality 79 identification accuracy becomes less accurate, participants who watch the stereotypically-white crime stimulus video should recall the target suspect as being lower on perceived Black stereotypicality. Finally, identification accuracy should have no impact on the recollection of the target suspect s level of perceived Black stereotypicality for participants who watch the control stimulus. In other words, the impact of crime type on recollections of the target suspect s perceived level of Black stereotypicality should be exacerbated by poor performance on the measure of general identification accuracy. As suggested by Aiken and West (1991), simple slopes analyses will be conducted to confirm the nature of this hypothesized interaction. Study 2 The purpose of Study 1 was to test the hypothesis that the type of crime a suspect is accused of committing influences eyewitness memory. Specifically, crime types were hypothesized to systematically affect participants recollection of the perceived stereotypicality of the target suspect. That is, participants who watched a surveillance video of a target suspect accused of a stereotypically-black crime (i.e., drive-by shooting) were expected to recall the target suspect as appearing higher on perceived Black stereotypicality than participants who watched a surveillance video of a target suspect accused of 1) a stereotypically-white crime (i.e., serial killing) or 2) a control video. Study 1 also contained 3 auxiliary hypotheses regarding the impact crime types, and some potential moderators, have on eyewitness memory. While exploring these hypotheses will increase our understanding of the factors that affect eyewitness memory, Study 1 will not be able to explain why this phenomenon occurs. That is, the cognitive mechanisms responsible for these hypothesized effects will not be addressed by Study 1. There are at least two cognitive mechanisms that could be responsible for the hypothesized impact crime types have on eyewitness memory. One possibility is that crime types

80 Perceived Stereotypicality 80 affect the processing of stimuli. That is, crime types could affect the way in which individuals encode information about the target suspect (e.g., the target suspect s physical appearance). Specifically, crime types could create different schema through which participants process and interpret the facial features of the target suspect (Martin & Halverson, 1981). As such, the information that participants encode as the event occurs may be distorted in a systematic manner. Note that this process would imply that participants memory of the target suspect need not be altered by the specific crime type. Rather, the way in which the information was originally processed may be the actual source of error. In other words, the hypothesized impact of crime types on participants memory of the perceived stereotypicality of the target suspect may not be due to a distorted memory, but rather, could be caused by the way in which individuals process the original stimuli (i.e., it may be due to an encoding error). An alternative possibility is that crime types affect eyewitness memory via normal memory processes. That is, crime types could affect what is remembered rather than what goes into memory. In other words, the hypothesized impact of crime types on memory of the perceived stereotypicality of the target suspect may not be due to encoding errors, but rather, errors that occur during the retrieval of information about the target suspect s appearance. As already noted above, individuals have a tendency to recall information that is consistent with their expectations (Martin & Halverson, 1983; McDermott, 1996; Roediger & McDermott, 1995; Seamon et al., 1998). This could cause participants to simply ignore/overlook stereotypeinconsistent information that has been accurately stored in memory. Note that the original memory of the target suspect s appearance would be accurate and included in the eyewitness memory. The pieces of information that are recalled during the retrieval process, however, would be influenced by knowledge of the given crime type.

81 Perceived Stereotypicality 81 These two potential explanations for the hypothesized impact crime types have on eyewitness memory have considerable implications for the criminal justice system. Specifically, if crime types influence the way in which information about the target suspect s appearance is encoded, then efforts at restoring/improving eyewitnesses memory of the target suspect would be futile. That is, information about the target suspect would have been encoded in a distorted manner and, as such, accurate recollections would be impossible to achieve (the memory traces would not exist). On the other hand, if crime types influence the way in which information about the target suspect s appearance is retrieved, then efforts at restoring/improving eyewitnesses memory of the target suspect could take one of the following two forms: 1) it could effectively restore eyewitnesses memory of the target suspect, or 2) it could exacerbate the hypothesized distortion. The former case would likely occur when eyewitnesses are provided with memory cues that avoid mention/association with the given crime type. The latter case, however, would likely occur when eyewitnesses are provided with memory cues that explicitly mention the given crime type. Understanding the cognitive mechanisms responsible for the hypothesized impact of crime types on eyewitness memory have considerable implications for the criminal justice system and warrant further study. One way to test these two competing explanations is to manipulate when participants learn about the given crime type. Specifically, participants could be informed either before or after viewing the stimulus video that the target suspect is accused of committing a stereotypically-black crime or stereotypically-white crime. If crime types affect eyewitness memory by way of encoding processes, then the perceived stereotypicality effects hypothesized in Study 1 would only be found among participants who had knowledge of the crime type beforehand (i.e., before watching the given stimulus video). Alternatively, if crime types affect

82 Perceived Stereotypicality 82 eyewitness memory by way of retrieval processes, then the perceived stereotypicality effects hypothesized in Study 1 would be found regardless of when participants learn about the crime type. That is, if crime types affect eyewitness memory by way of retrieval processes, participants could use their knowledge of the specific crime type obtained either before or after watching the stimulus video to help them recall the appearance of the target suspect. As such, the order in which participants receive information about the given crime type would be irrelevant. Since it is equally-plausible that encoding or retrieval processes are responsible for the hypothesized results of Study 1, Study 2 will be exploratory in nature. By testing these two competing explanations, as well as replicating the hypothesized effects to be tested in Study 1, Study 2 will help explain why the hypothesized impact crime types have on eyewitness memory occurs. That is, it is hoped that Study 2 will provide insight into the cognitive mechanisms responsible for the hypothesized impact crime types have on participants memory of the perceived stereotypicality of the target suspect. As such, Study 2 offers an important replication and extension of the anticipated findings of Study 1. This will ultimately increase the field s understanding of the sources of error, as well as the mechanisms responsible for these errors, in eyewitness identification. Methods Participants One hundred and twenty undergraduate participants will be recruited from the psychology participant pool at the University of California, Los Angeles to participate in the proposed study in exchange for course credit. As will be done in Study 1, the proposed study will only include participants who are of a different race than the target suspect. That is, participants who are Black will be excluded from participating in the proposed study. This will be the only

83 Perceived Stereotypicality 83 criterion for exclusion. Design The proposed study will be a 3 (Crime Type: Stereotypically-Black crime; Stereotypically-White crime; Control) X 2 (Processing: Encoding; Retrieval) betweenparticipants design. Random assignment will ensure that each of the six conditions contain approximately 20 participants. Recollection of the perceived Black stereotypicality of the target will serve as the primary dependent variable for the proposed study and will be measured as a continuous variable. Materials The materials developed for Study 2 will be identical to the materials used in Study 1 with one exception: Study 2 will require the development of six, rather than three, nearlyidentical stimulus videos. The same five practice identification tasks, two suspect identification tasks, 12-item cued-recall task, and 14-item demographic questionnaire developed in Study 1 will be used in Study 2. Stimulus videos. Two versions of the three nearly-identical 19-second stimulus videos of a Black man (i.e., the target suspect) leaving an ambiguous building used in Study 1 will be developed for the proposed study (see Appendix A). Each version of the stimulus videos will be identical to the stimulus videos developed for Study 1 with the following exception: one version of the stimulus videos will assess the possibility that errors in encoding are responsible for the hypothesized impact crime types have on eyewitness memory, while another version of the stimulus videos will assess the possibility that errors in retrieval are responsible for the hypothesized impact crime types have on eyewitness memory. In other words, 6 nearly-identical stimulus videos will be developed for the proposed study.

84 Perceived Stereotypicality 84 The encoding version of the stimulus videos will be identical to the stimulus videos developed for Study 1. That is, the encoding version of the stimulus video will display 13 slides in the following order: a blank slide, one of the three target slides (i.e., a text-only slide listing a stereotypically-black crime, a stereotypically-white crime, or a control slide), three countdown slides, six pictures of the target suspect leaving a building, a single blank slide, and one of two final slides. The retrieval version of the stimulus video will be identical to this with the following exception: the position of the target slides will be moved from the 2 nd slide to the final slide. In other words, the target slide listing a stereotypically-black crime, a stereotypically-white crime, or a control slide will appear after the presentation of the target suspect in the retrieval version of the stimulus video. A single version of the 2 nd slide will also be developed to indicate the start of the video. This slide will state the following: Start video. In all other respects, the retrieval version of the stimulus video will be identical to the encoding version of the stimulus video. Practice identification tasks. The same suspect identification tasks developed for Study 1 will be used in Study 2. Briefly, FantaMorph version 4.0 (Abrosoft, 2007) will be used to develop five separate practice identification tasks consisting of a 100-slide practice morph and corresponding practice target for the proposed study (see Appendix B). For more information about the development of the practice identification tasks, please refer to the Methods section of Study 1. Suspect identification tasks. The same suspect identification tasks developed for Study 1 will be used in Study 2. Briefly, FantaMorph version 4.0 (Abrosoft, 2007) will be used to develop two suspect identification tasks that morph together three separate mug-shot style photographs of Black men from low-to-high perceived Black stereotypicality or high-to-low perceived Black stereotypicality. One photograph will be of the target suspect, while the other

85 Perceived Stereotypicality 85 two photographs will be of Black men who are low and high on perceived Black stereotypicality, respectively (see Appendix C). For more information about the development of the suspect identification tasks, please refer to the Methods section of Study 1. Cued-recall task. The same 12-item cued recall task developed for Study 1 will be used in Study 2. Briefly, the items on this task will be developed to assess the following three themes: 1) participants factual memory of the stimulus video, 2) participants evaluations of the target, and 3) participants reception of the treatment/manipulation (i.e., a manipulation check). For information about the exact wording and number of items per theme, please refer to the Methods section of Study 1. Demographic questionnaire. The same 14-item demographic questionnaire developed for Study 1 will be used in Study 2. Briefly, the items on this task will be developed to assess the following five themes: 1) basic background information, 2) contact with Blacks, 3) religious background and self-perceived religiosity, 4) political affiliation and self-perceived political ideology, and 5) a probe for suspicion. For information about the exact wording and number of items per theme, please refer to the Methods section of Study 1. Procedure Participants will be individually-ran through the proposed study. Upon arriving at the experimental room, participants will be randomly-assigned to watch the encoding or retrieval version of the stereotypically-black crime, the stereotypically-white crime, or control stimulus video. Aside from being randomly assigned to one of the six versions of the stimulus video (as opposed to one of the three versions of the stimulus video), the procedures for the remainder of Study 2 will be identical to those used in Study 1. That is, participants will be given a 10 minute distracter task, 5 practice identification tasks, a target identification task, a cued-recall task, and a

86 Perceived Stereotypicality 86 demographic questionnaire. Following this, participants will be fully debriefed and informed of the true nature of the proposed study. Participants will then be thanked for their participation and given the appropriate contact information should any issues arise as a result of their participation in the proposed study. Plan of Analyses Data analyses for Study 2 will be similar to Study 1 in that they will take place in the following three phases: 1) preliminary analyses, 2) main analyses, and 3) auxiliary analyses. The purpose of the preliminary analyses will be to ensure that participants received the treatment/primary experimental manipulation and to identify and correct for any potential outliers in the data. The purpose of the main and auxiliary analyses will be to test the main and auxiliary hypotheses, respectively. Each of these phases is explained in detail below. Preliminary Analyses As will be done in Study 1, preliminary analyses for Study 2 will seek to ensure that participants received the treatment/experimental manipulation and to correct for potential outliers via appropriate transformations and/or Winsorization of the data (see W. J. Dixon, 1960). A detailed version of these analyses is described in the Results section of Study 1. Main Analyses Study 2 seeks to replicate and extend the finding that crime types affect eyewitness memory. As such, I will perform a 3 (Crime Type) X 2 (Processing) ANOVA on participants target identifications. These analyses are expected to replicate the anticipated findings of Study 1 by yielding a main effect of crime type on participants memory of the perceived stereotypicality of the target suspect. Given the exploratory nature of Study 2, these analyses will then take one of two paths. If the effect of crime type on eyewitness memory can be attributed to errors that

87 Perceived Stereotypicality 87 occur during encoding, the main effect of crime type should be qualified by a significant interaction between crime type and processing (see Figure 7). Simple effects would then be conducted with the expectation that, of those who watched the stereotypically-black crime stimulus video, participants in the encoding condition should recall the perceived stereotypicality of the target suspect as being higher than participants in the retrieval condition. Conversely, of those who watched the stereotypically-white crime stimulus video, participants in the encoding condition should recall the perceived stereotypicality of the target suspect as being lower than participants in the retrieval condition. Participants who watch the control stimulus video should be unaffected by the processing condition. If, on the other hand, the impact crime types has on participants memory of the perceived stereotypicality of the target suspect can be attributed to errors in retrieval, the hypothesized main effect of crime type should not be qualified by an interaction. That is, the order in which participants were informed of the crime type should have no effect on participants memory of the perceived stereotypicality of the target suspect. As such, processing would be dropped as a factor from the subsequent analyses and planned comparisons would be ran to compare the mean recollection of the target suspect s perceived stereotypicality for participants who watched 1) the stereotypically-black crime stimulus video, 2) the stereotypically-white crime stimulus video, or 3) the control stimulus video. These results should replicate the anticipated findings of Study 1 by showing that all the means differ significantly from one another (see Figure 4 for an analogous Figure). Auxiliary Analyses The same three auxiliary hypotheses of Study 1 will be tested in Study 2 7. Briefly, three 7 If there is a significant interaction between Crime Type and Processing, the first auxiliary hypothesis will be tested with a 3 (Crime Type) X 2 (Processing) ANOVA. Likewise, the regressions testing the 2 nd and 3 rd auxiliary

88 Perceived Stereotypicality 88 separate one-way ANOVAs on participants evaluations of the target suspect will be conducted to test the first auxiliary hypothesis, while two separate multiple regression equations using the dummy variables for crime type and the given moderator variable will be created to test the second and third auxiliary hypotheses. The results of these analyses are expected to replicate the findings produced in Study 1 8. As suggested by Aiken and West (1991), simple slopes analyses will be conducted to confirm the nature of the hypothesized interactions for the two separate regression models. Conclusion The program of research described in the current prospectus seeks to unify the following three previously-disparate literatures: 1) eyewitness identification, 2) schemas, stereotypes, and memory, and 3) biases based on perceived stereotypicality. Specifically, Study 1 tests the hypothesis that crime types affect eyewitnesses memory of the perceived stereotypicality of a target suspect in a stereotype-consistent manner. That is, participants who watch the stereotypically-black crime stimulus video are expected to recall the target suspect as appearing higher on perceived Black stereotypicality than participants who watch 1) the stereotypically- White crime stimulus video or 2) the control stimulus video. Study 2 seeks to replicate and extend these findings by exploring the cognitive mechanisms responsible for the hypothesized effect. In doing so, this program of research has the potential to provide considerable insight into each of the respective literatures, thereby offering a variety of important theoretical and practical contributions. hypotheses will include additional interaction terms modeling the 3-way interaction between Processing, Crime Type, and the given centered moderator, as well as the relevant lower-order interactions. 8 If the processing variable interacts with crime type, these data are expected to only replicate for participants who are exposed to the encoding versions of the stimulus videos. That is, only participants who are exposed to the given crime type beforehand would be expected to demonstrate the anticipated results of Study 1 if encoding is responsible for the hypothesized impact crime types have on eyewitness memory.

89 Perceived Stereotypicality 89 At the theoretical level, the current program of research provides important insights into the literature on how eyewitnesses memory of a target suspect operates. Specifically, the current program of research argues that, like other domains of memory, memory of the facial features of a target suspect are influenced by stereotype-consistent memory biases. Additionally, the studies described in the current prospectus add an important theoretical contribution to the literature on biases based on perceived stereotypicality by showing that perceived stereotypicality can effectively be employed as a dependent variable in experimental studies. This is particularly important, as past research on biases based on perceived stereotypicality has treated perceived stereotypicality as an independent variable. As such, the current program of research provides an opportunity to inform multiple research traditions. This will hopefully stimulate further insight and intrigue into the cognitive mechanisms responsible for errors in eyewitness identification. The current program of research also offers considerable practical implications for individuals interested in issues of social justice. Specifically, by exploring the impact crime types have on eyewitness memory, the current program of research could be used to inform the legal community about a previously-unknown source of error in eyewitness identification. Awareness of this possible source of error could then be communicated to jurors in cases where the accuracy of an eyewitness identification is questionable. Though it may be true that there is almost nothing more convincing to a jury than eyewitness testimony (Loftus, 1979, p. 19), research that seeks to uncover the various sources error can hopeful be used to mitigate the frequency of mistaken identities. Such a possibility motivates the current program of research and highlights the practical implications the hypothesized findings have for society.

90 Perceived Stereotypicality 90 References Abrosoft (2007). FantaMorph (Version 4.0) [Computer software]. Beijing, China: Abrosoft. Abshire, J., & Bornstein, B. H. (2003). Juror sensitivity to the cross-race effect. Law and Human Behavior, 27(5), Adobe (2009). Flash Player (Version 10.0) [Computer software]. San Jose, CA: Adobe Systems Incorporated. Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Araya, T., Ekehammar, B., & Akrami, N. (2003). Remembering things that never occured: The effects of to-be-forgotten stereotypical information. Experimental Psychology, 50(1), Averhart, C. J., & Bigler, R. S. (1997). Shades of meaning: Skin tone, racial attitudes, and constructive memory in African American children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 67, Ayuk, R. E. (1990). Cross-racial identification of transformed, untransformed, and mixed-race faces. International Journal of Psychology, 25, Bahrick, H. P., Hall, L. K., & Berger, S. A. (1996). Accuracy and distortion in memory for high school grades. Psychological Science, 7(5), Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Baylor, D. (1996). How photons start vision. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United State of America, 93,

91 Perceived Stereotypicality 91 Behrman, B. W., & Davey, S. L. (2001). Eyewitness identification in actual criminal cases: An archival analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 25(5), Benton, T. R., Ross, D. F., Bradshaw, E., Thomas, W. N., & Bradshaw, G. S. (2006). Eyewitness memory is still not common sense: Comparing jurors, judges and law enforcement to eyewitness experts. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, Blair, I. V., Chapleau, K. M., & Judd, C. M. (2005). The use of Afrocentric features as cues for judgment in the presence of diagnostic information. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35, Blair, I. V., Judd, C. M., & Chapleau, K. M. (2004). The influence of Afrocentric facial features in criminal sentencing. Psychological Science, 15(10), Blair, I. V., Judd, C. M., & Fallman, J. L. (2004). The automaticity of race and Afrocentric facial features in social judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(6), Blair, I. V., Judd, C. M., Sadler, M. S., & Jenkins, C. (2002). The role of Afrocentric features in person perception: Judging by features and categories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(1), Bornstein, B. H., Liebel, L. M., & Scarberry, N. C. (1998). Repeated testing in eyewitness memory: A means to improve recall of a negative emotional event. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 12, Braun, K., Ellis, R., & Loftus, E. F. (2001). Make my memory: How advertising can change our memories of the past. Psychology and Marketing, 19(1), Brewer, N., & Burke, A. (2002). Effects of testimonial inconsistencies and eyewitness confidence on mock-juror judgments. Law and Human Behavior, 26(3),

92 Perceived Stereotypicality 92 Brewer, N., & Wells, G. L. (2006). The confidence-accuracy relationship in eyewitness identification: Effects of lineup instructions, foil similarity, and target-absent base rates. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 12(1), Brigham, J. C., & Cairns, D. L. (1988). The effect of mugshot inspections on eyewitness identification accuracy. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18(16), Brigham, J. C., Maass, A., Martinez, D., & Whittenberger, G. (1983). The effect of arousal on facial recognition. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 4(3), Brigham, J. C., Maass, A., Snyder, L. D., & Spaulding, K. (1982). Accuracy of eyewitness identifications in a field setting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(4), Brigham, J. C., & Ready, D. J. (1985). Own-race bias in lineup construction. Law and Human Behavior, 9(4), Brigham, J. C., & WolfsKeil, M. P. (1983). Opinions of attorneys and law enforcement personnel on the accuracy of eyewitness identifications. Law and Human Behavior, 7(4), Brown, J. M. (2003). Eyewitness memory for arousing events: Putting things into context. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, Burke, A., Heuer, F., & Reisberg, D. (1992). Remembering emotional events. Memory and Cognition, 20(3), Carmody, D. (1994, June 25). Time responds to criticism over Simpson cover. The New York Times, p. A8. Christianson, S. A., & Loftus, E. F. (1991). Remembering emotional events: The fate of detailed information. Cognition and Emotion, 5(2),

93 Perceived Stereotypicality 93 Christianson, S. A., Loftus, E. F., Hoffman, H., & Loftus, G. R. (1991). Eye fixations and memory for emotional events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17(4), Connors, E., Lundregan, T., Miller, N., & McEwen, T. (1996). Convicted by juries, exonerated by science: Case studies in the use of DNA evidence to establish innocence after trial. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. Corneille, O., Huart, J., Becquart, E., & Bredart, S. (2004). When memory shifts toward more typical category exemplars: Accentuation effects in the recollection of ethnically ambiguous faces. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(2), Crawford, M. T., & Skowronski, J. J. (1998). When motivated thought leads to heigtened bias: High need for cognition can enhance the impact of stereotypes on memory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(10), Cutler, B. L., & Penrod, S. D. (1988). Improving the reliability of eyewitness identification: Lineup construction and presentation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(2), Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Dexter, H. R. (1990). Juror sensitivity to eyewitness identification evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 14(2), Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Martens, T. K. (1987). Improving the reliability of eyewitness identification: Putting context into context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72(4), Deffenbacher, K. A. (1994). Effects of arousal on everyday memory. Human Performance, 7(2),

94 Perceived Stereotypicality 94 Deffenbacher, K. A., Bornstein, B. H., & Penrod, S. D. (2006). Mugshot exposure effects: Retroactive interference, mugshot commitment, source confusion, and unconscious transference. Law and Human Behavior, 30(3), Deffenbacher, K. A., Bornstein, B. H., Penrod, S. D., & McGorty, E. K. (2004). A meta-analytic review of the effects of high stress on eyewitness memory. Law and Human Behavior, 28(6), Dixon, T. L., Azocar, C. L., & Casas, M. (2003). The portrayal of race and crime on television network news. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 47(4), Dixon, T. L., & Maddox, K. B. (2005). Skin tone, crime news, and social reality judgments: Priming the stereotype of the dark and dangerous black criminal. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35(8), Dixon, W. J. (1960). Simplified estimation from censored normal samples. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 31(2), Doyle, J. M. (2001). Discounting the error costs: Cross-racial false alarms in the culture of contemporary criminal justice. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7(1), Drabman, R. S., Robertson, S. J., Patterson, J. N., Jarvie, G. J., Hammer, D., & Cordua, G. (1981). Children's perception of media-portrayed sex roles. Sex Roles, 7(4), Drake, S. C., & Cayton, H. (1962). The measure of a man. In S. C. Drake & H. Cayton (Eds.), Black metropolis: A study of negro life in a northern city (Vol. 2, pp ). New York, NY: Harper. Dutton, A., & Carroll, M. (2001). Eyewitness testimony: Effects of source of arousal on memory, source-monitoring, and metamemory judgments. Australian Journal of Psychology, 53(2),

95 Perceived Stereotypicality 95 Eberhardt, J. L., Davies, P. G., Purdie-Vaughns, V. J., & Johnson, S. L. (2006). Looking deathworthy: Perceived stereotypicality of black defendants predicts capital-sentencing outcomes. Psychological Science, 17(5), Eberhardt, J. L., Goff, P. A., Purdie, V. J., & Davies, P. G. (2004). Seeing black: Race, crime, and visual processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(6), Ehrenberg, K., & Klauer, K. C. (2005). Flexible use of source information: Processing components of the inconsistency effect in person memory. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41(4), Fahsing, I. A., Ask, K., & Granhag, P. A. (2004). The man behind the mask: Accuracy and predictors of eyewitness offender descriptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(4), Ferguson, D. P., Rhodes, G., Lee, K., & Siram, N. (2001). 'They all look alike to me': Prejudice and cross-race face recognition. British Journal of Psychology, 92, Foster, R. A., Libkuman, T. M., Schooler, J. W., & Loftus, E. F. (1994). Consequentiality and eyewitness person identification. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 8(2), Frazier, E. F. (1957). The Negro in the United States. New York, NY: Macmillan. Freeman, H. E., Armor, D., Ross, J. M., & Pettigrew, T. F. (1966). Color gradation and attitudes among middle-income negroes. American Sociological Review, 31(3), Gallo, D. A., McDermott, K. B., Percer, J. M., & Roediger III, H. L. (2001). Modality effects in false recall and false recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27(2),

96 Perceived Stereotypicality 96 Garcia-Marques, L., Hamilton, D. L., & Maddox, K. B. (2002). Exhaustive and heuristic retrieval processes in person cognition: Further tests of the TRAP model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(2), Gilliam, F. D., & Iyengar, S. (2000). Prime suspects: The influence of local television news on the viewing public. American Journal of Political Science, 44(3), Hall, R. E. (1992). Bias among African-Americans regarding skin color: Implications for social work practice. Research on Social Work Practice, 2(4), Haw, R. M., Dickinson, J. J., & Meissner, C. A. (2007). The phenomenology of carryover effects between show-up and line-up identification. Memory, 15(1), Hill, M. E. (2000). Color differences in the socioeconomic status of African American men: Results of a longitudinal study. Social Forces, 78(4), Hill, M. E. (2002). Skin color and the perception of attractiveness among African Americans: Does gender make a difference? Social Psychology Quarterly, 65(1), Hills, P. J., & Lewis, M. B. (2006). Reducing the own-race bias in face recognition by shifting attention. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59(6), Hinz, T., & Pezdek, K. (2001). The effect of exposure to multiple lineups on face identification accuracy. Law and Human Behavior, 25(2), Hughes, M., & Hertel, B. R. (1990). The significance of color remains: A study of life chances, mate selection, and ethnic consciousness among black Americans. Social Forces, 68(4), Hunter, M. L. (2002). "If you're light you're alright": Light skin color as social capital for women of color. Gender and Society, 16(2),

97 Perceived Stereotypicality 97 Innocence Project (2008a). Facts on post-conviction DNA exonerations. Retrieved December 8, 2008, from Innocence Project (2008b). Know the cases: Robert Clark. Retrieved January 6, 2009, from Jenkins, F., & Davies, G. (1985). Contamination of facial memory through exposure to misleading composite pictures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70(1), Kahn, K. B., Davies, P. G., Eberhardt, J. L., & Correll, J. (2008). All black men are not treated equal: Stereotypicality and shooter bias. Manuscript submitted for publication. Kassin, S. M., Ellsworth, P. C., & Smith, V. L. (1989). The "general acceptance" of psychological research on eyewitness testimony: A survey of the experts. American Psychologist, 44(8), Kassin, S. M., Tubb, V. A., Hosch, H. M., & Memon, A. (2001). On the "general acceptance" of eyewitness testimony research: A new survey of the experts. American Psychologist, 56(5), Kebbell, M. R., & Milne, R. (1998). Police officers' perceptions of eyewitness performance in forensic investigations. Journal of Social Psychology, 138(3), Keith, V. M., & Herring, C. (1991). Skin tone and stratification in the black community. American Journal of Sociology, 97(3), Koomen, W., & Dijker, A. J. (1997). Ingroup and outgroup stereotypes and selective processing. European Journal of Social Psychology, 27, Kotlikoff, L. J. (1979). The structure of slave prices in New Orleans, 1804 to Economic Inquiry, 17(4),

98 Perceived Stereotypicality 98 Kramer, T. H., Buckhout, R., & Eugenio, P. (1990). Weapon focus, arousal, and eyewitness memory: Attention must be paid. Law and Human Behavior, 14(2), Landry, B. (1987). The new Black middle class. Berkeley, CA: The University of California Press. Lee, E., Whalen, T., Sakalauskas, J., Baigent, G., Bisesar, C., McCarthy, A., et al. (2004). Suspect identification by facial features. Ergonomics, 47(7), Lenton, A. P., Blair, I. V., & Hastie, R. (2001). Illusions of gender: Stereotypes evoke false memories. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, Libkuman, T. M., Nichols-Whitehead, P., Griffith, J., & Thomas, R. (1999). Source of arousal and memory for detail. Memory and Cognition, 27(1), Lindsay, R. C. L., Lim, R., Marando, L., & Cully, D. (1986). Mock-juror evaluations of eyewitness testimony: A test of metamemory hypotheses. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16(5), Lindsay, R. C. L., Martin, R., & Webber, L. (1994). Default values in eyewitness descriptions: A problem for the match-to-description lineup foil selection strategy. Law and Human Behavior, 18(5), Lindsay, R. C. L., & Wells, G. L. (1980). What price justice? Exploring the relationship of lineup fairness to identification accuracy. Law and Human Behavior, 4(4), Lindsay, R. C. L., & Wells, G. L. (1985). Improving eyewitness identifications from lineups: Simultaneous versus sequential lineup presentation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70(3), Lippmann, W. (1922). Public opinion. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace.

99 Perceived Stereotypicality 99 Livingston, R. W., & Brewer, M. B. (2002). What are we really priming? Cue-based versus category-based processing of facial stimuli. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(1), Loftus, E. F. (1979). Eyewitness testimony. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Loftus, E. F., & Greene, E. (1980). Warning: Even memory for faces may be contagious. Law and Human Behavior, 4(4), Loftus, E. F., Loftus, G. R., & Messo, J. (1987). Some facts about "weapon focus". Law and Human Behavior, 11(1), Loftus, E. F., & Palmer, J. C. (1974). Reconstruction of automobile destruction: An example of the interaction between language and memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13(5), Lyons, A., & Kashima, Y. (2003). How are stereotypes maintained through communication? The influence of stereotype sharedness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(6), Lyons, A., & Kashima, Y. (2006). Maintaining stereotypes in communication: Investigating memory biases and coherence-seeking in storytelling. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 9, MacLin, M. K., & Herrera, V. (2006). The criminal stereotype. North American Journal of Psychology, 8(2), MacLin, O. H., MacLin, M. K., & Malpass, R. S. (2001). Race, arousal, attention, exposure, and delay: An examination of factors moderating face recognition. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7(1),

100 Perceived Stereotypicality 100 MacLin, O. H., Van Sickler, B. R., MacLin, M. K., & Li, A. (2004). A re-examination of the cross-race effect: The role of race, inversion, and basketball trivia. North American Journal of Psychology, 6(2), Macrae, C. N., Milne, A. B., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (1994). Stereotypes as energy-saving devices: A peek inside the cognitive toolbox. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(1), Maddox, K. B. (2004). Perspectives on racial phenotypicality bias. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(4), Maddox, K. B., & Chase, S. G. (2004). Manipulating subcategory salience: Exploring the link between skin tone and social perception of Blacks. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34, Maddox, K. B., & Gray, S. A. (2002). Cognitive representations of black Americans: Reexploring the role of skin tone. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(2), Malpass, R. S., & Devine, P. G. (1981). Eyewitness identification: Lineup instructions and the absence of the offender. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66(4), Malpass, R. S., & Kravitz, J. (1969). Recognition for faces of own and other race. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13(4), Martin, C. L., & Halverson, C. F. (1981). A schematic processing model of sex typing and stereotyping in children. Child Development, 52(4), Martin, C. L., & Halverson, C. F. (1983). The effects of sex-typing schemas on young children's memory. Child Development, 54,

101 Perceived Stereotypicality 101 McDermott, K. B. (1996). The persistence of false memories in list recall. Journal of Memory and Language, 35(2), Meissner, C. A., & Brigham, J. C. (2001). Thirty years of investigating the own-race bias in memory for faces: A meta-analytic review. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7, Memon, A., Hope, L., & Bull, R. (2003). Exposure duration: Effects on eyewitness accuracy and confidence. British Journal of Psychology, 94, Myrdal, G. (1944). An American delimma. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Oliver, M. B. (1999). Caucasian viewers' memory of black and white criminal suspects in the news. Journal of Communication, 49(3), Oliver, M. B., & Fonash, D. (2002). Race and crime in the news: Whites' identification and misidentification of violent and nonviolent criminal suspects. Media Psychology, 4, Osborne, D., Davies, P. G., & Eberhardt, J. L. (2007). [Stereotypes about the race of the perpetrator in various crimes]. Unpublished raw data. Payne, B. K., Jacoby, L. L., & Lambert, A., J. (2004). Memory monitoring and the control of stereotype distortion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, Pendry, L. F., & Macrae, C. N. (1999). Cognitive load and person memory: The role of perceived group variability. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, Pezdek, K., & Blandon-Gitlin, I. (2005). When is an intervening line-up most likely to affect eyewitness identification accuracy? Legal and Criminological Psychology, 10, Pezdek, K., Blandon-Gitlin, I., & Moore, C. (2003). Children's face recognition memory: More evidence for the cross-race effect. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4),

102 Perceived Stereotypicality 102 Pickel, K. L. (1998). Unusualness and threat as possible causes of "weapon focus". Memory, 6(3), Pickel, K. L., Ross, S. J., & Truelove, R. S. (2006). Do weapons automatically capture attention? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, Pizzi, W. T., Blair, I. V., & Judd, C. M. (2005). Discrimination in sentencing on the basis of Afrocentric features. Michigan Journal of Race and Law, 10(2), Platz, S. J., & Hosch, H. M. (1988). Cross-racial/ethnic eyewitness identification: A field study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 18(11), Potter, R., & Brewer, N. (1999). Perceptions of witness behaviour-accuracy relationships held by police, lawyers and mock-jurors. Psychiatry, Psychology, and Law, 6(1), Rattner, A. (1988). Convicted but innocent: Wrongful conviction and the criminal justice system. Law and Human Behavior, 12(3), Roebers, C. M., & Schneider, W. (2000). The impact of misleading questions on eyewitness memory in children and adults. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14(6), Roediger, H. L., & McDermott, K. B. (1995). Creating false memories: Remembering words not presented in lists. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21(4), Ronquillo, J., Denson, T. F., Lickel, B., Lu, Z.-L., Nandy, A., & Maddox, K. B. (2007). The effects of skin tone on race-related amygdala activity: An fmri investigation. Scan, 2, Russell, K., Wilson, M., & Hall, R. (1993). The color complex: The politics of skin color among African Americans. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publishers.

103 Perceived Stereotypicality 103 Safer, M. A., Christianson, S. A., Autry, M. W., & Osterlund, K. (1998). Tunnel memory for traumatic events. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 12(2), Seamon, J. G., Luo, C. R., & Gallo, D. A. (1998). Creating false memories of words with or without recognition of list items: Evidence for nonconscious processes. Psychological Science, 9(1), Shaw, J. I., & Skolnick, P. (1994). Sex differences, weapon focus, and eyewitness reliability. The Journal of Social Psychology, 134(4), Sherman, J. W., & Bessenoff, G. R. (1999). Stereotypes as source-monitoring cues: On the interaction between episodic and semantic memory. Psychological Science, 10(2), Sherman, J. W., Groom, C. J., Ehrenberg, K., & Klauer, K. C. (2003). Bearing false witness under pressure: Implicit and explicit components of stereotype-driven memory distortions. Social Cognition, 21(3), Sidanius, J., Pena, Y., & Sawyer, M. (2001). Inclusionary discrimination: Pigmentocracy and patriotism in the Dominican Republic. Political Psychology, 22(4), Smith, S. M., Lindsay, R. C. L., Pryke, S., & Dysart, J. E. (2001). Postdictors of eyewitness errors: Can false identifications be diagnosed in the cross-race situation? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7(1), Stanny, C. J., & Johnson, T. C. (2000). Effects of stress induced by a simulated shooting on recall by police and citizen witnesses. American Journal of Psychology, 113(3), Steblay, N. M. (1997). Social influence in eyewitness recall: A meta-analytic review of lineup instruction effects. Law and Human Behavior, 21(3),

104 Perceived Stereotypicality 104 Steblay, N. M., Dysart, J. E., Fulero, S., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (2001). Eyewitness accuracy rates in sequential and simultaneous lineup presentations: A meta-analytic comparison. Law and Human Behavior, 25(5), Terkildsen, N. (1993). When white voters evaluate black candidates: The processing implications of candidate skin color, prejudice, and self-monitoring. American Journal of Political Science, 37(4), Thompson, J. (2000, June 18). I was certain, but I was wrong. The New York Times, p. D15. Uhlmann, E., Dasgupta, N., Elgueta, A., Greenwald, A. G., & Swanson, J. (2002). Subgroup prejudice based on skin color among Hispanics in the United States and Latin America. Social Cognition, 20(3), Underwood, B. J. (1965). False recognition produced by implicit verbal responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70(1), van Knippenberg, A., Dijksterhuis, A., & Vermeulen, D. (1999). Judgement and memory of a criminal act: The effects of stereotypes and cognitive load. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, Vertuno, J. (2009, February 7). DNA in 1985 rape exonerates man who died behind bars. The Los Angeles Times, p. A12. Wade, T. J., & Bielitz, S. (2005). The differential effect of skin color on attractiveness, personality evaluations, and perceived life success of African Americans. Journal of Black Psychology, 31(3), Wade, T. J., Romano, M. J., & Blue, L. (2004). The effect of African American skin color on hiring preferences. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(12),

105 Perceived Stereotypicality 105 Wagstaff, G. F., MacVeigh, J., Boston, R., Scott, L., Brunas-Wagstaff, J., & Cole, J. (2003). Can laboratory findings on eyewitness testimony be generalized to the real world? An archival analysis of the influence of violence, weapon presence, and age on eyewitness accuracy. The Journal of Psychology, 137(1), Wells, G. L. (1984). The psychology of lineup identifications. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 14(2), Wells, G. L., & Olson, E. A. (2003). Eyewitness identification. Annual Review of Psychology, 54(1), Wise, R. A., & Safer, M. A. (2004). What US judges know and believe about eyewitness testimony. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18, Wright, A. A., Santiago, H. C., Sands, S. F., Kendrick, D. F., & Cook, R. G. (1985). Memory processing of serial lists by pigeons, monkeys, and people. Science, 229(4710), Wright, D. B., Boyd, C. E., & Tredoux, C. G. (2001). A field study of own-race bias in South Africa and England. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7(1),

106 Perceived Stereotypicality 106 Figure Captions Figure 1. Example of a basic conceptualization of perceived Black stereotypicality, as shown in the media. The picture on the left is the actual mug-shot of O. J. Simpson, while the picture on the right has been manipulated in such a way that Mr. Simpson appears higher on perceived Black stereotypicality. Specifically, the skin tone of Mr. Simpson has been darkened on the cover of Time. Figure 2. Example of an inclusive conceptualization of perceived Black stereotypicality. The picture on the left is of a person who is perceived as low on Black stereotypicality, while the picture on the right is of a person who is perceived as high on Black stereotypicality. In addition to having darker skin, the person on the right has fuller lips and a broader nose than the person on the left. Figure 3. Contextual model of eyewitness identification in which the crime type affects identification accuracy, as indexed by the remembered perceived stereotypicality of the suspect, through stereotype activation. Concurrent and post-occurrence variables are hypothesized to moderate this relationship at separate stages of the identification process. Figure 4. Anticipated results for Study 1. Mean recollection of the perceived stereotypicality of the target suspect as a function of crime type and order. Figure 5. Anticpated results for Study 1. Mean evaluation of the Target Suspect (i.e., suspiciousness, dangerousness, and guilt) as a function of Crime Type. Figure 6. Anticipated results for Study 1. Regression plotting the interaction between crime type and the overall measure of contact/general identification accuracy measure. Figure 7. Anticipated results for Study 2. Mean recollection of the perceived stereotypicality of

107 the target suspect as a function of crime type and processing order. Perceived Stereotypicality 107

108 Perceived Stereotypicality 108 Figure 1. Example of a basic conceptualization of perceived Black stereotypicality, as shown in the media. The picture on the left is the actual mug-shot of O. J. Simpson, while the picture on the right has been manipulated in such a way that Mr. Simpson appears higher on perceived Black stereotypicality. Specifically, the skin tone of Mr. Simpson has been darkened on the cover of Time. Figure 2. Example of an inclusive conceptualization of perceived Black stereotypicality. The picture on the left is of a person who is perceived as low on Black stereotypicality, while the picture on the right is of a person who is perceived as high on Black stereotypicality. In addition to having darker skin, the person on the right has fuller lips and a broader nose than the person on the left.

109 Perceived Stereotypicality 109 Figure 3. Contextual model of eyewitness identification in which the crime type affects identification accuracy, as indexed by the remembered perceived stereotypicality of the suspect, through stereotype activation. Concurrent and post-occurrence variables are hypothesized to moderate this relationship at separate stages of the identification process. Concurrent Variables Stereotype Activation Post-occurrence Variables Crime Type Perceived Stereotypicality Figure 4. Anticipated results for Study 1. Mean recollection of the perceived stereotypicality of the target suspect as a function of crime type and order. Black Stereotypicality Crime Type

110 Perceived Stereotypicality 110 Figure 5. Anticpated results for Study 1. Mean evaluation of the Target Suspect (i.e., suspiciousness, dangerousness, and guilt) as a function of Crime Type. Evaluation of the Target Suspect * * ns Crime Type Figure 6. Anticipated results for Study 1. Regression plotting the interaction between crime type and the overall measure of contact/general identification accuracy measure. Black Stereotypicality Contact/General Identification Accuracy Measure

111 Perceived Stereotypicality 111 Figure 7. Anticipated results for Study 2. Mean recollection of the perceived stereotypicality of the target suspect as a function of crime type and processing order. Black Stereotypicality Crime Type

112 Perceived Stereotypicality 112 Appendix A Slides 1 & 12 Slide 2a (Black Crime) Slide 2b (White Crime) Slide 2c (Control) Slide 3 Slide 4 Slide 5 Slide 6 Slide 7 Slide 8 Slide 9 Slide 10 Slide 11 Slide 13a Slide 13b

113 Perceived Stereotypicality 113 Appendix B Practice Trial 1 st Frame Practice Target 100 th Frame