Lineup Administrators' Expectations: Their Impact on Eyewitness Confidence

This research focuses on how lineup a administrators influence eyewitnesses' postidentification confidence. What happens to witness confidence when a witness makes an identification that confirms the lineup administrator's expectations; what happens when this expectation is not confirmed? In Experiment 1, participant interviewers (n = 52) administered target-absent photo lineups to participant witnesses (n = 52). The interviewers did not view the simulated crime, but were told the thief's position in the lineup. In every instance this information was false (we used a target-absent lineup). A one-way ANOVA revealed that eyewitness identification confidence was malleable as a function of interviewers' beliefs about the thief's identity. In Experiment 2, participant jurors (n = 80) viewed 40 testimonies of Experiment 1 witnesses (2 participants viewed each testimony). Participant jurors judged all participant witnesses as equally credible despite their varying levels of postidentification confidence.

     

The U.S. study of work incapacity and reintegration

In many countries, including the United States, the number of persons being awarded long-term or permanent disability benefits has risen dramatically in recent years. Government agencies, advocates for the disabled, and others are looking for ways to help persons with disabilities return to the labor force. The Work Incapacity and Reintegration (WIR) Study was developed to address that issue. The United States and five other countries--Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Israel, and the Netherlands--have participated in a cross-national study of work incapacity under the auspices of the International Social Security Association. The study had two objectives: to examine the factors that influence the pattern of work resumption among persons disabled by a back condition and to identify the medical and nonmedical interventions that are most effective in helping such persons reenter the labor force. Samples for the U.S. national study were drawn from four cohorts: Social Security Disability Insurance (DI) beneficiaries, Supplemental Security Income (SSI) beneficiaries, and recipients of temporary disability insurance (TDI) benefits from the states of California and New Jersey. Only the TDI recipients were included in the comparative study. This article discusses the study design and methodology and summarizes the findings of the U.S. national study. Findings from the U.S. study show significant differences between the two cohorts in terms of work resumption and other characteristics. The proportions of respondents from the TDI cohorts who were working at the third and final study contact ranged from 53 percent to 65 percent, compared with less than 5 percent of the DI and SSI respondents. Respondents from the DI and SSI cohorts were on average about 10 years older than the TDI respondents, were less well educated, and reported more physical demands in their usual work. They also reported lower levels of functional capacity, higher levels of pain, and a much greater tendency to have other chronic illnesses. The types of medical treatments provided were remarkably uniform across cohorts and, within cohorts, between those who did and did not resume working. Thus, no medical intervention was identified that showed a significantly higher success rate in terms of facilitating a return to work. However, changes made in the work environment by the employer were an important factor in work reintegration; about 80 percent of respondents who resumed working did so with the help of workplace accommodations. In addition, since respondents with fewer physical demands in their job were more likely to return to work, there appears to be some potential for job retraining as a means of promoting a return to work. The Social Security Administration should consider these findings in developing strategies to help disabled workers reenter the labor force.     

Managing incidental findings in human subjects research: analysis and recommendations.

No consensus yet exists on how to handle incidental findings (IFs) in human subjects research. Yet empirical studies document IFs in a wide range of research studies, where IFs are findings beyond the aims of the study that are of potential health or reproductive importance to the individual research participant. This paper reports recommendations of a two-year project group funded by NIH to study how to manage IFs in genetic and genomic research, as well as imaging research. We conclude that researchers have an obligation to address the possibility of discovering IFs in their protocol and communications with the IRB, and in their consent forms and communications with research participants. Researchers should establish a pathway for handling IFs and communicate that to the IRB and research participants. We recommend a pathway and categorize IFs into those that must be disclosed to research participants, those that may be disclosed, and those that should not be disclosed.