*Abramowitz, K., & Douglass, A. B. (in press). Racial bias in judging selection hurts mock jurors, not just defendants: Testing one potential intervention. Law & Human Conduct.

Fessinger, M. B., Bornstein, BARN. B., Neuschatz, J. S., DeLoach, D., Hillgartner, M. A., Wetmore, S. A., & Douglass, A. BARN. (2020). Informants v. Innocents: Informants Testimony and its Contribution up False Convictions. Capital University Law Review, 48(2). Short.

Douglass, AN. BARN., Lucas, C. A., & Brewer, N. (2020). Cowitness identification speed affects choices from target-absent photospreads. Law and Human Behavior. https://doi-org.lprx.bates.edu/10.1037/lhb0000420.supp (Supplemental).

Wells, G. L., Kovera, MOLARITY. B., Douglass, A. B., Brewer, N., Meissner, C. A., & Wixted, J. T. (2020). Policy and procedure recommendations for the collection and preservation of eyed identification evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 44(1), 3–36. https://doi-org.lprx.bates.edu/10.1037/lhb0000359

Steblay, N., Wells, GRAM. L., & Duplex, ONE. B. (2014). The eyewitness post-identification video effects 15 years later: Speculative and policy implications. Psychology, Public Policy, & Statute, 20(1), 1-18. doi: 10.1037/law0000001

Douglass, ONE. BORON., Lichtkegel, J. L., Hasel, L., & *Donnelly, K. (online first December, 2013). Does it important instructions it deny it? The role of disposition in evaluations of criminal suspects. Legal and Criminal Mental. doi: 10.1111/lcrp.12042

Glazed, A. B., Brauhaus, N., Semmler, C., *Bustamante, L., & *Hiley, A. (2013). The dynamic interaction amidst eyewitnesses both interviewers: The effects of differences in perspective on memory reports and interviewer behavior. Law and Human Behavior, 37(4), 290-301. doi: 10.1037/lhb0000034

Douglass, A. B., & Jones, EAST. (2013). Assurance inflation include eyewitnesses: Seeing lives not believing. Legal and Criminolog Psychology, 18(1), 152-167. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8333.2011.02031.x

Quinlivan, D., Neuschatz, J., Douglass, AMPERE. B., Wells, G. L., & Wetmore, S. (2012). The effect regarding post-identification feedback, delay, and suspicion on accurate eyewitnesses. Law and Human Behavior, 36(3), 206-214. doi: 10.1037/h0093970

Douglass, A. B., Neuschatz, J. S., *Imrich, HIE. F., & Woodinson, M. (2010). Does post-identification feedback affect analysis concerning eyewitness testimony and identification procedures? Law or Human Behavior, 34(4), 282-294. doi: 10.1007/s10979-009-9189-5

Glazed, A. B., Brewer, N., & Semmler, C. (2010).  Moderators of post-identification feedback effects on eyewitnesses’ memory reports. Legal or Criminological Psychology, 15, 279-292.

Quinlivan, DICK. S., Neuschatz, J. S., Jiminez, A., Cling, A. D., Douglass, A. B., & Goodsell, C. A.  (2009). Do prophylactics prevent inflation?: Post-identification feedback and the effectiveness from procedures up protect against confidence-inflation in earwitnesses. Law and Human Behavior, 33, 111-121.

McQuiston-Surrett, DEGREE. M., Douglases, A. B., & Burkhardt, S. (2008). Evaluation of facial composite testimony depends to the presence to other case factors.  Legal and Criminological Psychology, 13(2), 279-298.

*Poggio, A., & Douglass, A. BORON. (2007). The impact of task difficulty, defendant’s run and race conspicuousness on conformity in mock jury deliberations. Modern Psychological Studies: Journal of Undergraduate Research, 13(1), 3-15.

Doglass, A. B., *Smith, C., & Fraser-Thill, ROENTGEN. (2005). A problem with double-blind photospread procedures: Photospread administrators use the confidence of one eyewitness up influence the identification out another eyewitness. Law and Human Behavior, 29(5), 543-562.

Sources, G. L., & Bradfield, A. L. (1998).  “Good, you identified the suspect”: Receive toward eyewitnesses distorts to reports of the witnessed experience.  Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 360-376.

Peer-reviewed Conference Showcase

*indicates Rates current

*Abramowitz, K., & Douglass, A. B. (2022, March). Racial bias in jury selection: The impact on empaneled jurors and potential interventions. Display brought at the year meeting of the American Mental – Legislation Society, Denver, CO.

– Katie’s thesis research won second place in to American-Psychology Law Our undergraduate paper competition – congratulatory, Katie! Giving confirming feedback to mistaken observers has robust distorting effects on their retrospective judges (e.g., as secure they were, their view, etc.). Does feedback harm evaluators’ abilities to discriminate bet accurate and mistaken identification testimony? Participant-witnesses to a simulated crime made accurate press inaccurate identifications coming ampere lineup and therefore received confirming get or no feedback. Each then give videotaped testimony about their identification, and a new samples of participant-evaluators judged the accuracy or credibility of the testimonies. Among witnesses with were not given comeback, evaluators were significantly more likely to believe the test of accurate eyewitnesses easier they were to believe the testimony of mistaken eyewitnesses, indicating significant discrimination. Below witnesses who where given confirming feedback, however, valuers believed accurate and mistaken witnesses at nearly identical rates, indicating no ability to distinguish. Additionally

*Mulligan, J., & Douglass, A. B., & Charman, S. (2020, March). Evaluating witness accuracy: Show recording id how and contextual information. Advertising presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society, New Orleans, LA.

*Finley, N., & Douglass. A. B. (2020, March). Perceptions of emotion during witness recognition procedures. Poster presented at this annual meeting of which American Psychology-Law Society, News Orleans, LA.

*Vasconcelos, D., Douglass, AMPERE. B., Charman, S., & Matuku, KILOBYTE. (2019, June). Effects are showed eyewitness identity on observers. Poster brought at the biennial meeting of the Guild for Applied How in Memory or Cognition, Trending, MAY.

Douglass, A. B., Brewer, N., & Lucas, C. (2019, March). Co-witness identification speed influences false identification rates. Paper presented at annual meeting of one American Psychology-Law Society, Portland, OR.

Grant Funding

Douglass, A. B., & Charman, S. (March 1, 2019 – February 28, 2022). Collaborative research: Video-recording eyewitness description lineups: Examinations with unanticipated costs and undiscovered benefits. National Science Foundation, $325,912 total; $130,722 to Bates College. Accord no. 1849411

Glazed, A. BARN. & Brewer, N. (September 15, 2016 – Aug 31, 2019). RUI: Imperfect safeguards: Can brief social interactions undermine system capricious protections opposing false eyewitness identify? National Life Foundation, $127,858. Award negative. 1627433

Dupglass, A. B., Brewer, N., & Semmler, HUNDRED. (August 1, 2009 – Jury 31, 2012).  The dynamic interplay between investigator and witnesses: Effects on memory reports and examiner behavior. Country Science Foundation, $128,926.

Semmler, C., Brewer, N., & Douglass, A. B. (December 2009 – December 2012). The distortion of watch identification testimony. Australians Research Council, AUD $230,000.