|Eyewitness Identification Research Laboratory
At the University of Texas at El Paso
Anderson, C. A., Lepper, M. R., & Ross, L. (1980). Perseverance of social theories: The role of explanation in the persistence of discredited information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 1037-1049.
Cutler, B. L., Dexter, H. R., & Penrod, S. D. (1990). Nonadversarial methods for sensitizing jurors to eyewitness evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20, 1197-1207. [abstract]
Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Dexter, H. R. (1989). The eyewitness, the expert psychologist, and the jury. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 311-332.
Devenport, J.L., Penrod, S.D. & Cutler, B.L. (1997). Eyewitness Identification Evidence: Evaluating Commonsense evluations, Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 3 (2/3) 338-361.
Fein, S., McCloskey, A. L., & Tomlinson, T. M. (1997). Can the jury disregard that information? The use of suspicion to reduce the prejudicial effects of pretrial publicity and inadmissible testimony. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1215-1226.
Jones, E. E. (1979). The rocky road from acts to dispositions. American Psychologist, 34, 107-117.
Kadish, M. R. & Kadish, S. H. (1971). The institutionalization of conflict: Jury acquittals. Journal of Social Issues, 27, 199-217.
Kassin, S. M. & McNall, K. (1991). Police interrogations and confessions: communicating promises and threats by pragmatic implication. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 233-251.
Kassin, S. M. & Sommers, S. R. (1997). Inadmissible testimony, instructions to disregard, and the jury: Substantive versus procedural considerations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1046-1054.
Kerwin, J. & Shaffer, D. R. (1994). Mock jurors versus mock juries: the role of deliberations in reaction to inadmissible testimony. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 153-162.
Narby, D. J. & Cutler, B. L. (1994). Effectiveness of voir dire as a safeguard in eyewitness cases. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 724-729.
Pickel, K. L. (1995). Inducing jurors to disregard inadmissible evidence: A legal explanation does not help. Law and Human Behavior, 19, 407-424.
Stinson, V., Devenport, J. L., Cutler, B. L., & Kravitz, D. A. (1997). How effective is the motion-to-suppress safeguard? Judges' perceptions of the suggestiveness and fairness of biased lineup procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 211-220.
Stinson, V., Devenport, J. L., Cutler, B. L., & Kravitz, D. A. (1996). How effective is the presence-of counsel safeguard? Attorney perceptions of suggestiveness, fairness, and correctability of biased lineup procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 64-75.
Sue, S., Smith, R. E., & Caldwell, C. (1973). Effects of inadmissible evidence on the decisions of simulated jurors: A moral dilemma. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 3, 345-353.
Thompson, W. C., Fong, G. T., & Rosenhan, D. L. (1981). Inadmissible evidence and juror verdicts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 453-463.
Wegner, D. M., Schneider, D. J., Carter, S. R., & White, T. L. (1987). Paradoxical effects of thought suppression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 5-13.
Wolf, S. & Montgomery, D. A. (1977). Effects of inadmissible evidence and level of judicial admonishment to disregard on the judgments of mock jurors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 7, 205-219.