Eyewitness Identification Decisions Research Articles

Supplemental Material for The Confidence-Accuracy Relationship for Eyewitness Identification Decisions: Effects of Exposure Duration, Retention Interval, and Divided Attention

Supplemental Material for The Confidence-Accuracy Relationship for Eyewitness Identification Decisions: Effects of Exposure Duration, Retention Interval, and Divided Attention

The effect of line‐up administrator blindness on the recording of eyewitness identification decisions

Purpose. Line‐up administrators’ expectations have been shown to influence eyewitnesses’ identification decisions. Expectations may also influence administrators’ willingness to record witnesses’ decisions as positive identifications.Methods. Single‐ and double‐blind participant administrators presented a line‐up to a confederate witness, who identified either the suspect or a filler.Results. A hierarchical log‐linear analysis revealed an interaction effect of blindness and witness choice on participants’ recording of the identification: Single‐blind administrators were more likely to record the confederate's choice as a positive identification when the witness chose the suspect (vs. a filler), whereas double‐blind administrators’ records were not influenced by the witness's choice. An interaction between blindness and witness choice also emerged for participant administrators’ witness evaluations. Single‐blind administrators rated confederates who chose a filler as significantly less credible than those who chose a suspect; double‐blind administrators’ ratings were consistent across photo selection.Conclusions. Blindness influenced line‐up administrators’ record of line‐up outcomes. These results add to the growing body of research supporting the use of double‐blind line‐up administration.

Sequential lineup presentation promotes less-biased criterion setting but does not improve discriminability.

When compared with simultaneous lineup presentation, sequential presentation has been shown to reduce false identifications to a greater extent than it reduces correct identifications. However, there has been much debate about whether this difference in identification performance represents improved discriminability or more conservative responding. In this research, data from 22 experiments that compared sequential and simultaneous lineups were analyzed using a compound signal-detection model, which is specifically designed to describe decision-making performance on tasks such as eyewitness identification tests. Sequential (cf. simultaneous) presentation did not influence discriminability, but produced a conservative shift in response bias that resulted in less-biased choosing for sequential than simultaneous lineups. These results inform understanding of the effects of lineup presentation mode on eyewitness identification decisions.

Predictors of eyewitness identification decisions from video lineups in England: A field study.

Eyewitness identification decisions from 1,039 real lineups in England were analysed. Identification procedures have undergone dramatic change in the United Kingdom over recent years. Video lineups are now standard procedure, in which each lineup member is seen sequentially. The whole lineup is seen twice before the witness can make a decision, and the witness can request additional viewings of the lineup. A key aim of this paper was to investigate the association between repeated viewing and eyewitness decisions. Repeated viewing was strongly associated with increased filler identification rates, suggesting that witnesses who requested additional viewings were more willing to guess. In addition, several other factors were associated with lineup outcomes, including the age difference between the suspect and the witness, the type of crime committed, and delay. Overall, the suspect identification rate was 39%, the filler identification rate was 26% and the lineup rejection rate was 35%.

Probative value of absolute and relative judgments in eyewitness identification.

It is well-accepted that eyewitness identification decisions based on relative judgments are less accurate than identification decisions based on absolute judgments. However, the theoretical foundation for this view has not been established. In this study relative and absolute judgments were compared through simulations of the WITNESS model (Clark, Appl Cogn Psychol 17:629-654, 2003) to address the question: Do suspect identifications based on absolute judgments have higher probative value than suspect identifications based on relative judgments? Simulations of the WITNESS model showed a consistent advantage for absolute judgments over relative judgments for suspect-matched lineups. However, simulations of same-foils lineups showed a complex interaction based on the accuracy of memory and the similarity relationships among lineup members.

Predictors of eyewitness identification decisions from video lineups in England: A field study.

Predictors of eyewitness identification decisions from video lineups in England: A field study.

Phenomenological reports diagnose accuracy of eyewitness identification decisions

This study investigated whether measuring the phenomenology of eyewitness identification decisions aids evaluation of their accuracy. Witnesses (N=502) viewed a simulated crime and attempted to identify two targets from lineups. A divided attention manipulation during encoding reduced the rate of remember (R) correct identifications, but not the rates of R foil identifications or know (K) judgments in the absence of recollection (i.e., K/[1-R]). Both RK judgments and recollection ratings (a novel measure of graded recollection) distinguished correct from incorrect positive identifications. However, only recollection ratings improved accuracy evaluation after identification confidence was taken into account. These results provide evidence that RK judgments for identification decisions function in a similar way as for recognition decisions; are consistent with the notion of graded recollection; and indicate that measures of phenomenology can enhance the evaluation of identification accuracy.

Uniforms affect the accuracy of children's eyewitness identification decisions

AbstractA substantial proportion of line‐up identifications involving child eyewitnesses in the UK are conducted by police officers wearing uniform. This study examined the possibility that wearing a uniform constitutes an authority cue that adversely affects a child's ability to make accurate eyewitness identifications. Sixty participants aged 9–10 years old witnessed a staged crime and were later asked to identify a ‘burglar’ from a simultaneous line‐up using a 2 (uniform: present vs. absent) × 2 (target: present vs. absent) design. Children in the uniform present conditions made significantly more choices than children in the uniform absent conditions. More importantly, in the presence of a uniform, children made significantly more false identifications in target‐absent line‐ups. Analysis of supplementary, identification‐related variables (identification time and confidence, state anxiety) suggested that (1) the children experienced uncertainty if the target was absent from the line‐up, but (2) this uncertainty was not expressed when the line‐up administrator wore a uniform, leading to an increase in false identifications. Implications for line‐up administration procedures for children are discussed. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Lineup administrator influences on eyewitness identification decisions.

The present research examines how a lineup administrator may influence eyewitness identification decisions through different forms of influence, after providing the witness with standard, unbiased instructions. Participant-witnesses viewed a staged crime and were later shown a target-present or target-absent lineup. The lineup administrators either remained silent while the witness examined the lineup, made ostensibly cautionary statements to the witness, or prompted the witness to identify the person in the lineup who seemed most similar to the perpetrator. These two forms of influence, denoted as subtle-influence and similarity-influence conditions, led to different patterns of identification results. Results for the similarity-influence condition were generally consistent with criterion shift and relative judgment models of eyewitness decision making. Results for the subtle-influence condition, however, cannot be explained by alterations in the decision rule. A weighted matching model is outlined to explain results from the subtle-influence condition. Witnesses seemed generally unaware of the attempts by the lineup administrator to influence their decision, although some noted it, and the probative value of suspect identifications was lower for those who did note it. Implications for theory and policy are discussed.

Distinguishing accurate from inaccurate eyewitness identifications with an optional deadline procedure

Two experiments examined the efficacy of an optional deadline lineup procedure for distinguishing correct from incorrect eyewitness identification decisions. The procedure involved briefly presenting the lineup, removing the lineup from view, then giving participants the option of either making an identification decision or viewing the lineup again. When compared with participants operating under a forced deadline (i.e. forced to respond after the brief presentation) or standard lineup instructions, the optional deadline procedure identified participants with an impressive probability of having made a correct identification when used with target-present lineups and biased instructions. With unbiased instructions, the optional deadline produced clear discrimination between correct and incorrect identification decisions for choosers and, importantly, also for non-choosers. Possible strategies for improving the efficacy of the procedure are suggested.

Investigating investigators: Examining the impact of eyewitness identification evidence on student-investigators.

This research examined the impact of eyewitness identification decisions on student-investigators. Undergraduates played the role of police investigators and interviewed student-witnesses who had been shown either a good or poor view of the perpetrator in a videotaped crime. Based on information obtained from the witness, student-investigators then chose a suspect from a database containing information about potential suspects and rated the probability that their suspect was the culprit. Investigators then administered a photo lineup to witnesses, and re-rated the probability that their suspect was guilty. Student-investigators were highly influenced by eyewitness identification decisions, typically overestimating the information gained from the identification decision (except under conditions that led witnesses to be very accurate), and were generally unable to differentiate between accurate and inaccurate witnesses.

Multiple confidence estimates as indices of eyewitness memory.

Eyewitness identification decisions are vulnerable to various influences on witnesses' decision criteria that contribute to false identifications of innocent suspects and failures to choose perpetrators. An alternative procedure using confidence estimates to assess the degree of match between novel and previously viewed faces was investigated. Classification algorithms were applied to participants' confidence data to determine when a confidence value or pattern of confidence values indicated a positive response. Experiment 1 compared confidence group classification accuracy with a binary decision control group's accuracy on a standard old-new face recognition task and found superior accuracy for the confidence group for target-absent trials but not for target-present trials. Experiment 2 used a face mini-lineup task and found reduced target-present accuracy offset by large gains in target-absent accuracy. Using a standard lineup paradigm, Experiments 3 and 4 also found improved classification accuracy for target-absent lineups and, with a more sophisticated algorithm, for target-present lineups. This demonstrates the accessibility of evidence for recognition memory decisions and points to a more sensitive index of memory quality than is afforded by binary decisions.

The influence of eyewitness identification decisions and age of witness on jurors’ verdicts and perceptions of reliability

Juror verdicts and the perceived reliability of crime details were examined as a function of eyewitness identification decisions (positive identification vs non-identification vs foil identification) and age of the eyewitness (adult vs child). Participants were asked to read a partial transcript of a mock trial and then render verdicts and reliability ratings of various crime details about which the witness testified. Positive identifications led to more guilty verdicts than non-identifications but not more than foil identifications. Positive identifications were perceived as more reliable than non-identifications and foil identifications, whereas non-identifications were perceived as reliable as foil identifications. The reliability of other crime details did not differ as a function of identification decision or age of witness. Overall, the adult witness was rated as more credible than the child witness; however an appreciable difference was not observed in the outcomes measured.

Investigating Investigators: Examining Witnesses' Influence on Investigators.

This research examined the influence of eyewitness identification decisions on participants in the role of police investigators. Undergraduate "investigators" interviewed confederate "witnesses" and then searched a computer database of potential suspects. The database included information on each suspect's physical description, prior criminal record, alibi, and fingerprints. Participants selected a suspect and estimated the probability that the suspect was guilty. Investigators subsequently administered a photo lineup to the witness and re-estimated the suspect's guilt. If the witness identified the suspect probability estimates increased dramatically. If the witness identified an innocent lineup member or rejected the lineup, investigators' probability estimates dropped significantly, even when pre-lineup objective evidence (e.g., fingerprints) was strong. Performance of participants acting as witnesses in two baseline studies was at chance. Therefore, participant-investigators greatly overestimated the amount of information gain provided by eyewitness identifications.

Simultaneous lineups, sequential lineups, and showups: Eyewitness identification decisions of adults and children.

Two experiments were conducted comparing the identification accuracy of children aged 3–15 years (N = 307) and undergraduates (N = 384) using target-present and target-absent simultaneous and sequential lineups and showups. Correct identification rates tended not to vary across either age of subject or identification procedure. However, children show a significant tendency to guess as indicated by their lower rate of correct rejection when the target is absent. The tendency for children to make false positive choices was particularly evident with showups.

The effect of authority and social influence on eyewitness suggestibility and person recognition

This study investigated the influence of an authority figure on eyewitness identification. Participants watched a staged crime and then were administered a photo lineup by either an authority (policeman) or non-authority figure (civilian). Participants in the authority condition were more likely to choose a lineup member than those in the non-authority condition. There was no effect of authority, however, on the accuracy of the identification decisions. The lack of a deleterious effect suggests that the presence of a police officer during identification procedures does not create an unduly suggestive situation or have undesirable effects on eyewitness identification decisions. Although witnesses' choosing behaviors did not increase the rate of identification errors, the effect of the administrator's authority on choosing was reduced when unbiased instructions (vs. biased instructions) were presented to the witnesses. Thus, support was found for the use of neutral instructions during eyewitness identification procedures.