Photo Lineup Research Articles

The effects of filler similarity and lineup size on eyewitness identification.

A photo lineup, which is a cross between an old/new and a forced-choice recognition memory test, consists of one suspect, whose face was either seen before or not, and several physically similar fillers. First, the participant/witness must decide whether the person who was previously seen is present (old/new) and then, if present, choose the previously seen target (forced choice). Competing signal-detection models of eyewitness identification performance make different predictions about how certain variables will affect a witness's ability to discriminate previously seen (guilty) suspects from new (innocent) suspects. One key variable is the similarity of the fillers to the suspect in the lineup, and another key variable is the size of the lineup (i.e., the number of fillers). Previous research investigating the role of filler similarity has supported one model, known as the Ensemble model, whereas previous research investigating the role of lineup size has supported a competing model, known as the Independent Observations model. We simultaneously manipulated these two variables (filler similarity and lineup size) and found a pattern that is not predicted by either model. When the fillers were highly similar to the suspect, increasing lineup size reduced discriminability, but when the fillers were dissimilar to the suspect, increasing lineup size enhanced discriminability. The results suggest that each additional filler adds noise to the decision-making process and that this noise factor is minimized by maximizing filler dissimilarity. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

What latent variable underlies confidence in lineup rejections?

When a face is positively identified from a multi-person photo lineup, it is presumably the face that generates the strongest memory signal. In addition, confidence in a positive identification is presumably determined by the strength of the memory signal associated with that face. However, when no face generates a strong enough memory signal to be identified, the entire set of faces in the lineup is collectively rejected. What latent variable underlies confidence in a lineup rejection? One possibility is that the face that generates the strongest memory signal still determines confidence (i.e., the weaker that memory signal is, the more confidently the lineup is rejected). Another possibility is that confidence in a lineup rejection is determined by the average strength of the memory signals generated by the faces in the lineup (i.e., the weaker that average memory signal is, the more confidently the lineup is rejected). The reliance on an average signal has been proposed as a possible explanation for why the confidence-accuracy for lineup rejections tends to be weak. Here, we modified two existing signal-detection-based lineup models (the Independent Observations model and the Ensemble model) and fit them to multiple lineup datasets to investigate which decision variable underlies confidence in lineup rejections. Both models agree that confidence in a lineup rejection is based on the strongest memory signal in the lineup, not on the average signal. These model fits also revealed for the first time that the memory signals in a lineup are correlated, as they theoretically should be.

Diagnosing eyewitness identifications with reaction time‑based Concealed Information Test: the effect of viewpoint congruency between test and encoding

Mistaken eyewitness identifications continue to be a major contributor to miscarriages of justice. Previous experiments have suggested that implicit identification procedures such as the Concealed Information Test (CIT) might be a promising alternative to classic lineups when encoding conditions during the crime were favorable. We tested this idea by manipulating view congruency (frontal vs. profile view) between encoding and test. Participants witnessed a videotaped mock theft that showed the thief and victim almost exclusively from frontal or profile view. At test, viewing angle was either congruent or incongruent with the view during encoding. We tested eyewitness identification with the RT-CIT (N = 74), and with a traditional simultaneous photo lineup (N = 97). The CIT showed strong capacity to diagnose face recognition (d = 0.91 [0.64; 1.18]), but unexpectedly, view congruency did not moderate this effect. View congruency moderated lineup performance for one of the two lineups. Following these unexpected findings, we conducted a replication with a stronger congruency manipulation and larger sample size. CIT (N = 156) showed moderate capacity to diagnose face recognition (d = 0.63 [0.46; 0.80]) and now view congruency did moderate the CIT effect. For lineups (N = 156), view congruency again moderated performance for one of the two lineups. Capacity for diagnosing face recognition was similar for lineups and RT-CIT in our first comparison, but much stronger for lineups in our second comparison. Future experiments might investigate more conditions that affect performance in lineups vs. the RT-CIT differentially.

Active exploration of faces in police lineups increases discrimination accuracy.

Eyewitness identifications play a key role in the justice system, but eyewitnesses can make errors, often with profound consequences. We used findings from basic science and innovative technologies to develop and test whether a novel interactive lineup procedure, wherein witnesses can rotate and dynamically view the lineup faces from different angles, improves witness discrimination accuracy compared with a widely used procedure in laboratories and police forces around the world-the static frontal-pose photo lineup. No novel procedure has previously been shown to improve witness discrimination accuracy. In Experiment 1, participants (N = 220) identified culprits from sequentially presented interactive lineups or static frontal-pose photo lineups. In Experiment 2, participants (N = 8,507) identified culprits from interactive lineups that were either presented sequentially, simultaneously wherein the faces could be moved independently, or simultaneously wherein the faces moved jointly into the same angle. Sequential interactive lineups enhanced witness discrimination accuracy compared with static photo lineups, and simultaneous interactive lineups enhanced witness discrimination accuracy compared with sequential interactive lineups. These finding were true both when participants viewed suspects who were of the same or different ethnicity/race as themselves. Our findings exemplify how basic science can be used to address the important applied policy issue on how best to conduct a police lineup and reduce eyewitness errors. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Eyewitness Identification Is a Visual Search Task.

The simultaneous six-pack photo lineup is a standard eyewitness identification procedure, consisting of one police suspect plus five physically similar fillers. The photo lineup is either a target-present array (the suspect is guilty) or a target-absent array (the suspect is innocent). The eyewitness is asked to search the six photos in the array with respect to a target template stored in memory (namely, the memory of the perpetrator's face). If the witness determines that the perpetrator is in fact in the lineup (detection), then the next step is to specify the position of the perpetrator's face in the lineup (localization). The witness may also determine that the perpetrator is not present and reject the lineup. In other words, a police lineup is a detection-plus-localization visual search task. Signal detection concepts that have long guided thinking about visual search have recently had a significant impact on our understanding of police lineups.

Perpetrator pose reinstatement during a lineup test increases discrimination accuracy

We examined how encoding view influences the information that is stored in and retrieved from memory during an eyewitness identification task. Participants watched a mock crime and we varied the angle from which they viewed the perpetrator. In Experiment 1, participants (N = 2904) were tested with a static photo lineup; the viewing angle of the lineup members was the same or different from the perpetrator at encoding. In Experiment 2, participants (N = 1430) were tested with a novel interactive lineup in which they could rotate the lineup faces into any angle. In both experiments, discrimination accuracy was greater when the viewing angle at encoding and test matched. Participants reinstated the angle of the interactive faces to match their encoding angle. Our results highlight the importance of encoding specificity for eyewitness identification, and show that people actively seek out information in the testing environment that matches the study environment to aid memory retrieval.

Using intentional and incidental encoding instructions to test the transfer inappropriate processing shift account of verbal overshadowing

ABSTRACT A major assumption of the transfer inappropriate processing shift account of verbal overshadowing is that poor recognition performance is due to competing and inappropriate processes used during the encoding, recall, and recognition stages. The present study tested the TIPS account. Participants watched a video of a burglary during an encoding task and attempted to identify the burglar from a photo lineup during a recognition task. Encoding and recall instructions were varied between participants to encourage featural or configural processes at the encoding and recall stages. Prior to the encoding task, some participants were given intentional encoding instructions to focus on the face of the person in the video. Other participants were given incidental encoding instructions or not told anything. Prior to the recall task, some participants were given instructions to recall the description of the burglar, and other participants were not. Results revealed an interaction between encoding and recall instructions on recognition performance.

Digital Detectives: Websleuthing Reduces Eyewitness Identification Accuracy in Police Lineups.

Eyewitnesses to crimes sometimes search for a culprit on social media before viewing a police lineup, but it is not known whether this affects subsequent lineup identification accuracy. The present online study was conducted to address this. Two hundred and eighty-five participants viewed a mock crime video, and after a 15–20 min delay either (i) viewed a mock social media site including the culprit, (ii) viewed a mock social media site including a lookalike, or (iii) completed a filler task. A week later, participants made an identification from a photo lineup. It was predicted that searching for a culprit on social media containing the lookalike (rather than the culprit) would reduce lineup identification accuracy. There was a significant association between social media exposure and lineup accuracy for the Target Present lineup (30% more of the participants who saw the lookalike on social media failed to positively identify the culprit than participants in the other conditions), but for the Target Absent lineup (which also included the lookalike) there was no significant association with lineup identification accuracy. The results suggest that if an eyewitness sees a lookalike (where they are expecting to see the culprit) when conducting a self-directed search on social media, they are less likely to subsequently identify the culprit in the formal ID procedure.

EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE: PHOTO LINEUPS — COMMENTARY ON THE POLISH SUPREME COURT RULING OF 14 MARCH 2019, V KK 11/19 (APPROVING)

In the commented ruling, the Supreme Court considered some of the problematic aspects of the Polish photo lineup procedure, stating that improprieties in organising or conducting identifi cation procedures do not necessarily render eyewitness identifi cation evidence inadmissible. This commentary discusses the assessment of the probative value of identification evidence, as well as critically analyses the current laws regarding photo lineup practices in Poland. Finally, the commentary argues that significant and research-based changes in the Polish legal standards for eyewitness identifi cation are necessary to prevent potential miscarriages of justice, briefly discussing the most urgent of them.

“All I remember is the black eye”: A distinctive facial feature harms eyewitness identification

SummaryMany crimes occur in which a perpetrator has a distinctive facial feature, such as a tattoo or black eye, but few eyewitness identification (ID) studies have involved such a feature. We conducted an experiment to determine how eyewitness ID performance is impacted by a distinctive facial feature, and how police could deal with this issue. Participants (N = 4,218) studied a target face with or without a black eye, and later viewed a simultaneous photo lineup either containing the target or not. For those who saw a target with a black eye, this feature was either replicated among all lineup members or was removed. The black eye harmed empirical discriminability regardless of replication or removal, which did not differ. However, participants responded more conservatively when the black eye was removed, compared to replication. Lastly, immediate confidence was consistently indicative of accuracy.

Recruiting Eyewitness Science in Criminal Investigations: The Pocket Man Case

ABSTRACTDo surveillance shots and phantom drawings of the perpetrator in child abuse cases, images that are widely published in public media, contaminate the identifications made by young victims? This question was raised in the later phases of the investigations into a Norwegian child abuse case that involved a large number of victims, where a suspect was apprehended, and a photo lineup with the victims was planned. The police sought to answer the question by conducting a simple experiment: Two samples of participants – children in the age range of the real victims but from a different part of the country, and police cadets – were presented with the published photographs and drawings of the suspect; after a short interval, they were asked to pick the man they had seen in a 12-person photo lineup that was planned to be used with the real victims. The results showed that media exposure – surveillance shots and phantom drawings – in this case did not increase the probability of selecting the suspect. It is concluded that criminal investigations in some cases may profit from research evaluations of police procedures and eyewitness performance, supporting the investigative process by sorting out unreliable procedures and increasing the quality of the evidence.

424. Southern Arizona Town: Homes Colonized by Kissing Bugs. Is Chagas Disease Being Transmitted?

BackgroundBisbee, Arizona is a small mining community established 1880, located 11 miles from the United States–Mexico border with a total population of 5,500 residents. Homes in this town are revealing evidence of colonization by kissing bugs (triatomines), specifically Triatoma recurva, T. rubida, and T. protracta, which are known to harbor the causative agent of Chagas disease, Trypanosoma cruzi.MethodsCommunity members who were bitten by triatomines, provided specimens from their homes, and completed a home evaluation as well as point-of-care testing for Chagas disease (Chagas Detect™ Plus (CDP) Rapid Test, InBiosInternational, Inc.).ResultsTwenty-two individuals from 17 households consented to participate and provided 117 triatomines collected from inside and/or outside their homes (N = 70 T. rubida; N = 36 T. recurva; N = 11 T. protracta). Trypanosoma cruzi DNA was detected by RT-PCR in 25.6% (30/117) of the total triatomines (31.4% (22/70) T. rubida; 18.2% (2/11) T. protracta; 16.6% (6/36) T. recurva). The median age of homes was 91 years. Mean persons per home was 2.2; with 1.0 dog and 0.8 cat per home. Seventy percent of homes used either a swamp cooler or central air conditioning. Only one home had used pesticides in an attempt to exterminate insects. All homeowners reported various wildlife near their home, including javelina, pack rat, rock squirrel, mule deer, and raccoon (Figure 1). Homeowners were asked to correctly identify these triatomines in a photo line-up of similar insects, and 75% of participants made a successful identification of at least one triatomine, 90.9% being able to identify T. recurva. When asked whether they had changed their sleeping patterns due to triatomine bites, 45.5% (10/22) had done so. The same surveyed group rated their frustration with triatomines in their home on scale of 1–10 (10 being the most frustrated) revealing a mean rating of 6.6; with nine individuals rating 10. CDP rapid testing of these participants (N = 22) were all-negative for serological evidence of T. cruzi infection.ConclusionDespite exposure to T. cruzi-positive triatomines among these household residents, some having sustained hundreds of bites throughout the years, we do not have evidence of transmission of Chagas disease. These are preliminary findings and further study is underway.Figure 1.Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.

Making sense of sequential lineups: An experimental and theoretical analysis of position effects

Abstract As part of a criminal investigation, the police often administer a recognition memory task known as a photo lineup. A typical 6-person photo lineup consists of one suspect (who may or may not be guilty) and five physically similar foils (all known to be innocent). The photos can be shown simultaneously (i.e., all at once) or sequentially (i.e., one at a time). Approximately 30% of U.S. police departments have moved to using the sequential lineup procedure over the last 30 years, yet its theoretical underpinnings remain poorly understood. A simple signal detection model makes several unexpected predictions about how the sequential lineup procedure should affect the ability of eyewitnesses to discriminate innocent from guilty suspects. For example, empirical discriminability (area under the receiver operating characteristic) should decrease as the position of the suspect in the lineup increases. In addition, under some conditions, a fair sequential lineup should not yield higher discriminability than a single-person (non-lineup) recognition test known as a showup. The results of two experiments reported here confirmed these predictions. Counterintuitively, even though empirical discriminability decreased as the suspect’s sequential position increased, a signal detection model fit to the data indicated that theoretical discriminability exhibited a small effect in the opposite direction (increasing with the sequential position of the suspect). The latter result is consistent with diagnostic feature-detection theory of eyewitness identification.

Time to exonerate eyewitness memory

Understandably enough, most people are under the impression that eyewitness memory is unreliable. For example, research shows that memory is malleable, so much so that people can come to confidently remember traumatic events that never actually happened. In addition, eyewitness misidentifications made with high confidence in a court of law are known to have played a role in more than 70% of the 358 wrongful convictions that have been overturned based on DNA evidence since 1989. However, recent research demonstrates that eyewitness confidence is highly indicative of accuracy on an initial, uncontaminated, properly administered photo lineup. In other words, low confidence indicates that the test result (i.e., the ID) is inconclusive, whereas high confidence indicates that the test result is far more conclusive. Critically, for the DNA exonerees who were misidentified by an eyewitness in a court of law, in every case where their initial confidence can be determined, the eyewitness appropriately expressed low confidence. For any other kind of evidence (e.g., DNA, fingerprints), an inconclusive test result like that would have been the end of it. By contrast, in the case of eyewitness evidence, investigators repeatedly tested (and therefore unwittingly contaminated) memory until a seemingly conclusive high-confidence ID could be presented to the jury. Blaming eyewitness memory for the failure of the criminal justice system to accept the inconclusive nature of the initial (uncontaminated) eyewitness evidence seems misguided. In addition to exonerating the innocent defendants who were wrongfully convicted, the time has come to exonerate eyewitness memory too.

Models of lineup memory

Face recognition memory is often tested by the police using a photo lineup, which consists of one suspect, who is either innocent or guilty, and five or more physically similar fillers, all of whom are known to be innocent. For many years, lineups were investigated in lab studies without guidance from standard models of recognition memory. More recently, signal detection theory has been used to conceptualize lineup memory and to motivate receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis of lineup performance. Here, we describe three competing signal-detection models of lineup memory, derive their likelihood functions, and fit them to empirical ROC data. We also introduce the notion that memory signals generated by the faces in a lineup are likely to be correlated because, by design, those faces share features. The models we investigate differ in their predictions about the effect that correlated memory signals should have on the ability to discriminate innocent from guilty suspects. A popular compound signal detection model known as the Integration model predicts that correlated memory signals should impair discriminability. Empirically, this model performed so poorly that, going forward, it should probably be abandoned. The best-fitting model incorporates a principle known as “ensemble coding,” which predicts that correlated memory signals should enhance discriminability. The ensemble model aligns with a previously proposed theory of eyewitness identification according to which the simultaneous presentation of faces in a lineup enhances discriminability compared to when faces are presented in isolation because it permits eyewitnesses to detect and discount non-diagnostic facial features.

Secondary Confessions as Post-identification Feedback: How Jailhouse Informant Testimony Can Alter Eyewitnesses’ Identification Decisions

Prior research has shown that primary confession evidence can alter eyewitnesses’ identifications and self-reported confidence. The present study investigated whether secondary confession evidence from a jailhouse informant could have the same effect. Participants (N = 368) watched a video of an armed robbery and made an identification decision from a photo lineup. Except for those in the no-feedback conditions, all participants then read that certain lineup members either confessed to the crime, denied involvement, or were implicated by a jailhouse informant. Jailhouse informant testimony implicating the identified lineup member led participants to have significantly higher confidence in their identification. In contrast, jailhouse informant testimony that implicated a lineup member other than the identified led participants to have significantly lower confidence in their initial identification, and 80% of these witnesses changed their identification. These results indicate that jailhouse informant testimony can influence eyewitnesses’ confidence and their identification decisions.

The effects of verbal descriptions on performance in lineups and showups.

Verbally describing a face has been found to impair subsequent recognition of that face from a photo lineup, a phenomenon known as the verbal overshadowing effect (Schooler & Engstler-Schooler, 1990). Recently, a large direct replication study successfully reproduced that original finding (Alogna et al., 2014). However, in both the original study and the replication studies, memory was tested using only target-present lineups (i.e., lineups containing the previously seen target face), making it possible to compute the correct identification rate (correct ID rate; i.e., the hit rate) but not the false identification rate (false ID rate; i.e., the false alarm rate). Thus, the lower correct ID rate for the verbal condition could reflect either reduced discriminability or a conservative criterion shift relative to the control condition. In four verbal overshadowing experiments reported here, we measured both correct ID rates and false ID rates using photo lineups (Experiments 1 and 2) or single-photo showups (Experiments 3 and 4). The experimental manipulation (verbally describing the face or not) occurred either immediately after encoding (Experiments 1 and 3) or 20-min after encoding (Experiments 2 and 4). In the immediate condition, discriminability did not differ between groups, but in the delayed condition, discriminability was lower in the verbal description group (i.e., a verbal overshadowing effect was observed). A fifth experiment found that the effect of the immediate-versus-delayed manipulation may be attributable to a change in the content of verbal descriptions, with the ratio of diagnostic to generic facial features in the descriptions decreasing as delay increases. (PsycINFO Database Record

ROCs in Eyewitness Identification: Instructions versus Confidence Ratings

SummaryFrom the perspective of signal detection theory, different lineup instructions may induce different levels of response bias. If so, then collecting correct and false identification rates across different instructional conditions will trace out the receiver operating characteristic (ROC)—the same ROC that, theoretically, could also be traced out from a single instruction condition in which each eyewitness decision is accompanied by a confidence rating. We tested whether the two approaches do in fact yield the same ROC. Participants were assigned to a confidence rating condition or to an instructional biasing condition (liberal, neutral, unbiased, or conservative). After watching a video of a mock crime, participants were presented with instructions followed by a six‐person simultaneous photo lineup. The ROCs from both methods were similar, but they were not exactly the same. These findings have potentially important policy implications for how the legal system should go about controlling eyewitness response bias.Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Undermining position effects in choices from arrays, with implications for police lineups.

Choices from arrays are often characterized by position effects, such as edge-aversion. We investigated position effects when participants attempted to pick a suspect from an array similar to a police photo lineup. A reanalysis of data from 2 large-scale field studies showed that choices made under realistic conditions-closely matching eyewitness identification decisions in police investigations-displayed edge-aversion and bias to choose from the top row (Study 1). In a series of experiments (Studies 2a-2c and 3), participants guessing the location of a suspect exhibited edge-aversion regardless of whether the lineup was constructed to maximize the chances of the suspect being picked, to ensure the suspect did not stand out, or randomly. Participants favored top locations only when the lineup was constructed to maximize the chances of the suspect being picked. In Studies 4 and 5, position effects disappeared when (a) response options were presented in an array with no obvious center, edges, or corners, and (b) instructions stated that the suspect was placed randomly. These findings show that position effects are influenced by a combination of task instructions and array shape. Randomizing the location of the suspect and modifying the shape of the lineup array may reduce misidentification. (PsycINFO Database Record

The Effect of Post-ID Feedback on Retrospective Self-Reports in Showups

This study examined the effects of post-identification feedback on witness retrospective self-reports in showups and lineups, and importantly, focused on guilty and innocent suspect identifications. After viewing a mock crime video, participants were asked to identify the suspect from either a target-present or target-absent photo lineup or showup. Participants were randomly assigned to receive confirming feedback (“Great job, you made the correct decision”) or no feedback about their identification, before self-reporting confidence, view, attention, willingness to testify, and trust of a witness with a similar view. We replicated the typical finding that confirming feedback inflated witness self-reports and resulted in a larger proportion of witnesses meeting the credibility threshold necessary to testify. Importantly, we also found that showups had significantly higher self-reports than lineups, despite the equal discriminability achieved in this study between these two procedures. These data provide yet another reason for the police to restrict use of showups.