{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01425438596491228, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.521428571428571, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Lineup Identification: Combating the Effect of Post-Identification Feedback

ABSTRACT Eyewitness identification testimony can be compelling evidence against a defendant; however, it is frequently unreliable and inaccurate. Post-identification feedback has been shown to affect participants' recollection and increased eyewitness's confidence even when their identification was inaccurate. This effect can be reduced or eliminated by the use of suspicion by casting doubt on the motives of the agent who provided the feedback. Suspicion encourages the eyewitness to consider the source of the feedback and the possible motives guiding it. Suspicion can be provided by a number of different agents and is effective even after a long interval has passed between the feedback and the inoculation. This flexibility makes suspicion particularly well suited for application to the legal system and as a bias correction.