Read, J. D., Tollestrup, P., Hammersley, R., McFadzen, E., & Christensen, A. (1990). The unconscious transference effect: Are innocent bystanders ever misidentified? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 4, 3-31.
Read et al., (1990) provide a field approach to studying unconscious transference. Three out of five of the experiments within this article were conducted at various locations external to a typical campus setting (e.g., shopping malls, convenience stores). The authors provide a review of the evidence in support of and the evidence lacking to find support for the unconscious transference effect. Evidence claiming to have found support for the UT effect is examined and critiques are made regarding the validity of the evidence based on the methodology (e.g., photos used instead of live face to face interaction) used and the utility of the results for applications to real world settings.
Experiments 1 through 3 examine the unconscious transference effect in a field setting (e.g. shopping malls, convenience markets). They each examine and modify duration between initial encoding of the bystander and the perpetrator (who makes a strange change exchange request). Thus, the bystander enters the store either before or after the perpetrator (depending on the experiment) and then asks the clerk (i.e., the participant) about a woman and child (ostensibly his wife and child) being in the store earlier. Lineups, either TA (target absent) or both present (bystander and perpetrator both in the lineup) , were then given to the participants (i.e., clerks) who were in either a control condition (i.e., no bystander interaction) or the transference condition (i.e., bystander interaction). No evidence of a transference effect was found in Experiments 1 through 3. Results of these experiments are discussed in terms of cautioning that the field of eyewitness identification does not yet have reliable evidence regarding the occurrence of this phenomenon to make suggestions or policy recommendations, nor to speak to the reliability of the effect in court for those who often testify as expert witnesses.
Experiments 4 and 5 were conducted in a more traditional large classroom setting on a university campus involving a college student sample. Both examined the effect of having a bystander enter the classroom and also having a "perpetrator" (electrician) entering the classroom. Lineups were then given to participants in a control group (no bystander) and participants in the transference group. No transference effect was found in Experiment 4 as no one in the transference condition chose the innocent bystander from a target absent lineup. If a transference effect were to be found, it would typically be found via a large proportion of those in the transference condition choosing (i.e., misidentifying) the innocent bystander from a target absent lineup.
Experiment 5 was the sole experiment to find a transference effect. This experiment made use of schedules of students concurrently enrolled in an introductory psychology class and other introductory classes from other fields of study. As such, the researchers were able to have bystanders enter some classrooms (for those in the 3 transference conditions; bystander before perpetrator, bystander at same time as perpetrator, and bystander viewed after the perpetrator) but not other classes (for those in the control condition). There was a significant effect for those in the transference conditions compared to the control condition in which those in the transference condition misidentified the innocent bystander to a greater extent than those in the control condition when viewing a target absent lineup with the face of the innocent bystander included.
The authors discuss these results in terms of the usefulness of information regarding instances in which the transference effect was not found and instances/circumstances in which it was found. Not finding an effect can provide useful information regarding phenomena such as the unconscious transference effect. Additionally, the authors speak to the notion that a conscious inference, in which the participants in the transference condition actually think that the perpetrator and the bystander are the same person, may occur at retrieval when viewing the lineups. Thus, these people may think that the bystander and the perpetrator are the same people and thus if viewing a target absent lineup in which the innocent bystander is present, but not the perpetrator, those who have experienced conscious inference erroneously think the bystander is the perpetrator and subsequently misidentify the bystander from the lineup (false alarm) instead of rejecting the lineup (correct rejection).
By DP
I have not read much about this topic area, but it is a fascinating phenomenon. It is interesting to read about situations where unconscious transference occurs and situations where it does not occur. I also noticed that the similarity issue seemed to come up again in at least one of the articles, which is interesting because that idea can certainly tie into lineup administration and lineup construction research.
I thought that the Read article was interesting because it seemed to be somewhat of a foundational article for the future studies conducted about unconscious transference. I liked how they went through a variety of contexts to test unconscious transference, such as clerks in real world situations and also using college students. I also thought that the difficulties of conducting field research were highlighted in this article because it was difficult for the researchers to return to talk to the same clerks. Even though they only found the unconscious transference effect in the fifth experiment, I agree with their point that it was important to also examine the conditions that the unconscious transference effect did not occur. A particularly interesting finding from this study was that unconscious transference seemed to occur only in mundane events. This finding definitely has applications for the criminal justice system. Some of the findings from this study were later contradicted by the research conducted by Ross and his colleagues. Read found that if witnesses can identify where they saw the bystander before, then they are less likely to identify the bystander. However, Ross found that the recalling of the context was a necessary condition for the misidentification to happen. Also, the change blindness article and the finding that distraction was important to the occurrence of change blindness supported the idea about how processing can influence unconscious transference.
Similar appearing foils also had an effect on lineup identifications and altered performances, which is an interesting finding that ties into other research about lineups. The articles also talked about similar processes that underlie the unconscious transference effect, including encoding. It appears that more research needs to be conducted concerning this phenomenon and the conditions surrounding it.
Heather