1. Unconscious Transference
Dwight J. Peterson
Eyewitness Identification Seminar
University of Northern Iowa

2. Unconscious Transference
Definition:
Identifying a innocent foil, who is familiar from some context, instead of the actual perpetrator
Different from identifying any old foil face from the lineup?
Unfortunately, yes, this phenomenon presents yet another problem with eyewitness ID’s
Transference effect: Disproportionate choosing rate for a previously seen foil face compared to other, unfamiliar foils.

3. Transference Effect I see Joe steal a car Police show up
I am the witness to the crime
Cops have no one in custody
I see Tom while flipping through a mugshot book at the police station
Later on, I’m given the following lineup:
Tom

4. Transference Effect What happens if I pick number 4?
What happens if number 4 (Tom) has two priors for grand theft auto?
Police construct a lineup with people who fit my description and have priors for GTA. Lineups based on descriptions + priors for crimes from mugshot books happen all the time.

5. History Glanville Williams (1955) Houts (1956) Elizabeth Loftus (1976)
Coined the term
Houts (1956)
The sailor and the ticket agent
Elizabeth Loftus (1976)
Pioneer study of the UT effect
TA lineup: 60% chose previously viewed “bystander”
Thompson (1988)
Rape victim confusion related to source of familiarity

6. Associated Problems Mugshot books Innocent bystanders
Different context, but familiarity remains
Lineups after mugshots = increased probability for misidentification
Innocent bystanders
Same context, retrieve and identify innocent face from lineup

7. Theories Source monitoring errors Automatic processing
Distinguishing between memory sources
Automatic processing
Implicit Memory
Infer identity at encoding or retrieval
“Conscious Inference”
Read et al., (1990)

8. Source Monitoring External Internal
Based on sensory experience and subsequent perception
Internal
Based on thoughts, feelings
Easier to distinguish between one internal and one external memory
Reality Monitoring: Harder to distinguish between two external (or two internal) memories
Lindsay & Johnson (1989)
Notion that the bystander and the perp are two different people, but confuse the two memories and pick the innocent bystander anyway.

9. Automatic Processes Remembering old non-famous names as famous
Jacoby, Kelly, Brown, & Jasechko (1989)
Familiarity without recognition
Jacoby, Woloshyn, & Kelley (1989)
Automatic processing of faces may lead to familiarity without conscious attention to features necessary for differentiation

10. Conscious Inference Retrieval Encoding
Bystander does not come into play until the lineup is presented
Read et al., (1990)
Encoding
Ross et al., (1994)
Erroneously thinking the bystander is the assailant while encoding the crime, and later thinking they are one in the same
Increase delay between retrieval in the Read et al., Experiment 3.

11. Differentiating Between Bystander and Perpetrator
One in the same?
TA-lineups increase transference
Lineups with BOTH the bystander and perpetrator cause a different type of trouble for transference participants
Awareness that the two are DIFFERENT decreases transference
Ross et al., (1994) (Experiment 2)
Phillips, Geiselman, Haghighi, & Lin (1997)
Those who experience conscious transference will either be correct in the TP lineups or incorrect in the TA lineups because they think the bystander and the perp are one in the same. Both in the lineup may lead to a rejection or DK response b/c of confusion as to why both are in there nad which is which and who is who

12. Evidence for Unconscious Transference
Loftus (1976)
Read et al., (1990); Experiment 5
View conscious inference as occuring at retrieval
Ross et al., (1994); Experiments 1, 2, 3, 4
Evidence for conscious inference at encoding
Experiments 3 & 4 manipulated encoding
Found conscious inference was made soon after viewing the portion of video displaying the crime

13. Meta-analysis Deffenbacher, Bornstein, & Penrod (2006)
Mainly a review of problems with mugshots
Commitment effects
Retroactive Interference
Unconscious Transference
Effect size twice as large for studies looking at the mugshot exposure compared to studies looking at exposure to an innocent bystander

14. Memory and Mugshot Books
Commitment effects pose a problem
Dysart, Lindsay, Hammond, & Dupuis (2001)
Found greater inaccuracy rates for commitment group (Experiment 2)
No difference between control conditions and transference conditions (Experiment 2)

15. Other Related Issues Older participants
Higher misidentification rates for younger facial stimuli
More errors related to identity confusion for older participants
Perfect & Harris (2003)
Other-race faces and context memory
More errors for which context (background) a face was observed for African American faces
Horry & Wright (2008)

16. A Recent Theory
Unconscious transference as a type of change blindness?
Davis, Loftus, Vanous, & Cucciare, (2008)
Illusions of continuity
Levin & Simons (2000)
Continuous vs. Discontinuous Innocent
Misidentification rates higher for the CI

17. What do you think?
Is the evidence for unconscious transference compelling enough to attempt policy suggestions or even worthy of mention in court by expert witnesses?
Does talking about this phenomenon decrease the credibility of the expert witness?
What about Kassin, et al’s (2001) position on reliable evidence?

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

19. References
Davis, D., Loftus, E. F., Vanous, S., & Cucciare, M. (2008). ‘Unconscious transference’ can be an instance of ‘change blindness.’ Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22,
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,
Dysart, J. E., Lindsay, R. C. L., Hammond, R., & Dupuis, P. (2001). Mugshot exposure prior to lineup identification: Interference, transference, and commitment effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86,
Geiselman, R. E., Haghighi, R., & Stown, Ronna (1996). Unconscious transference and characteristics of accurate and inaccurate eyewitnesses. Psychology, Crime, and Law, 2,
Horry, R., & Wright, D. B. (2008). I know your face but not where I saw you: Context memory is impaired for other-race faces. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15,
Kassin, S. M., Tubb, V. A., Hosch, H. M., & Memon, A. (2001). On the “general acceptance” of eyewitness testimony research. American Psychologist, 56,
Loftus, E. F. (1976). Unconscious transference in eyewitness identification. Law and Psychology Review, 2,
Perfect, T. J., & Harris, L. J. (2003). Adult age differences in unconscious transference: Source confusion or identity blending? Memory & Cognition, 31,
Phillips, M. R., Geiselman, R. E., Haghighi, D., & Lin, C. (1997). Some boundary conditions for bystander misidentifications. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 24,
Read, D. J., Tollestrup, P., Hammersley, R., McFadzen, E., et al. (1990). The unconscious transference effect: Are innocent bystanders ever misidentified? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 4, 3-31.
Ross, D. F., Ceci, S. J., Dunning, D., & Toglia, M. P. (1994). Unconscious transference and mistaken identity: When a witness misidentifies a familiar but innocent person. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79,