Abstract
The diagnostic feature-detection theory (DFT) of eyewitness identification is based on facial information that is diagnostic versus non-diagnostic of suspect guilt. It primarily has been tested by discounting non-diagnostic information at retrieval, typically by surrounding a single suspect showup with good fillers to create a lineup. We tested additional DFT predictions by manipulating the presence of facial information (i.e., the exterior region of the face) at both encoding and retrieval with a large between-subjects factorial design (N = 19,414). In support of DFT and in replication of the literature, lineups yielded higher discriminability than showups. In support of encoding specificity, conditions that matched information between encoding and retrieval were generally superior to mismatch conditions. More importantly, we supported several DFT and encoding specificity predictions not previously tested, including that (a) adding non-diagnostic information will reduce discriminability for showups more so than lineups, and (b) removing diagnostic information will lower discriminability for both showups and lineups. These results have implications for police deciding whether to conduct a showup or a lineup, and when dealing with partially disguised perpetrators (e.g., wearing a hoodie).
Highlights
Mistaken eyewitness identification (ID) is a factor in approximately 71% of the convictions revealed by DNA exoneration in the USA (Innocence Project 2020)
Starting with the full showup, Feature 4 is absent at encoding, and we argue that adding the external region of the face does not add diagnostic information, but does add non-diagnostic information (i.e., Feature 2, but not Feature 4, has memory strength values)
ROC Analysis ROC analysis is a relatively new technique in its application to eyewitness ID (Wixted and Mickes 2012), it has a long history in applied fields including radiology and item recognition tasks (e.g., Macmillan and Creelman 2005)
Summary
Mistaken eyewitness identification (ID) is a factor in approximately 71% of the convictions revealed by DNA exoneration in the USA (Innocence Project 2020) This problem has resulted in a great deal of research over the last few decades (e.g., Wells 1978; see reviews by Gronlund and Carlson 2013, and Wells et al 2006), and the study of eyewitness ID extends back much further (Arnold 1906; Münsterberg 1908). From the beginning there was a general lack of theoretical guidance (Bornstein and Penrod 2008; Gronlund and Benjamin 2018) This has resulted in calls for more eyewitness ID research undergirded by cognitive theory generally (e.g., Dianiska et al 2020; Lane and Meissner 2008), and signal detection theory (SDT; Green and Swets 1966; Wixted and Mickes 2012). Before we can adequately describe the theory, how it has been tested in the literature, and our own novel testing methods, we will briefly explain these concepts
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
