Results and Discussion ---------------------- n = 111 - 7 were excluded because they were too old, 1 was excluded because she was not Caucasian. Of the remaining sample (n = 103, 60 female/43 male), 52 were in the experimental group and 51 were in the control group. Participants had a mean age of 19.7 years (s.d. 1.5), ages ranged from 17 to 24 years. Accuracy control group 72.5% experimental group 71.2% Chi-Square comparing percentage of correct identification Chi squared *df* 1 = .03, *p* = .9, Phi = .016. Recording a verbal description had no observable effect on identification accuracy. False positive identification control group 71.4% experimental group 46.7% Chi-Square comparing the ratio of the percentage selecting the wrong face (misidentification) to the percentage indicating “not present” across the experimental and control conditions. Chi squared *df* 1 = 1.83, *p* = .2, Phi = .251. There was also no signifiacnt effect of providing a verbal description on rates of false positive identification. Confidence ratings Independent sampless 2 (Condition) x 2 (Correct vs. incorrect/miss) analysis of variance Significant main effect of accuracy, *F*(1, 99) = 5.04,*p* = .03, partial eta squared = .05. No significant main effect of condition (p = .8) and no significant interaction (p = .7). Participants who chose correctly were more confident than participants who were incorrect. However, this is a small effect, accounting for only 5% of the variance in confidence ratings. The Stirling University leg of the Schooler & Engstler Schooler (1990) replication did not not find any evidence of verbal overshadowing effect when the verbal description is provided immediately after viewing the robbery video, with a subsequent 20 minute filler task before providing an identification response.