Photo Lineups Research Articles

A Background of Bias: Subtle Changes in Lineup Backgrounds Increase the Own Race Bias

AbstractIn police photo lineups, there can sometimes be small variations in shades and hues of the background images due to the faces being filmed under different lighting and cameras. Own race bias refers to a situation where people are better at remembering the faces of those who are the same race as them and find it more difficult to recognise faces from a different race. In this paper, we investigated the influence of small colour variations in backgrounds for the recognition of Black and White faces. Across 3 experiments, we found when small changes were introduced into the backgrounds of the images this increased false identifications for previously unseen Black faces, but not White faces. This finding suggests that the police need to ensure that the backgrounds of the photo lineups they use are all uniform to reduce mistaken identifications of innocent suspects.

Diagnosing eyewitness identifications with reaction time-based concealed information test: the effect of observation time

Eyewitness identification procedures rely heavily on explicit identification from lineups. Lineups have been criticized because they have a considerable error rate. We tested the potential of implicit identifications in a Concealed Information Test (CIT) as an alternative. Previous experiments have suggested that implicit identification procedures might be suited when viewing conditions were favorable. In two experiments, mock eyewitnesses (Ns = 94, 509) witnessed a videotaped mock theft with longer or shorter observation time. We derived eyewitness identifications either implicitly from CIT reaction times or explicitly from simultaneous photo lineups. In Experiment 2, we also manipulated perpetrator presence. In both experiments, the perpetrator-present CIT showed capacity to diagnose face recognition, with large effect sizes (dE1 = 0.85 [0.51; 1.18]; dE2 = 0.74 [0.52; 0.96]), as expected. Unexpectedly, no moderation by observation time was found. In line with our hypothesis, no CIT effect emerged in the perpetrator-absent condition, indicating the absence of recognition (dE2 = 0.02 [− 0.17; 0.20]). We found no compelling evidence that one method would outperform the other. This work adds to accumulating evidence that suggests that, under favorable viewing conditions and replication provided, the RT-CIT might be diagnostic of facial recognition, for example when witnesses are hesitant of making an explicit identification. Future work might investigate conditions that affect performance in one, but not the other identification method.

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).

Designing police lineups to maximize memory performance.

How can lineups be designed to elicit the best achievable memory performance? One step toward that goal is to compare lineup procedures. In a recent comparison of U.S. and U.K. lineup procedures, discriminability and reliability was better when memory was tested using the U.S. procedure. However, because there are so many differences between the procedures, it is unclear what explains this superior performance. The main goal of the current research is, therefore, to systematically isolate the differences between the U.S. and U.K. lineups to determine their effects on discriminability and reliability. In 5 experiments, we compared (a) presentation format: simultaneous versus sequential; (b) stimulus format: photos versus videos; (c) number of views: 1-lap versus 2-lap versus choice in both video and photo lineups; and (d) lineup size: 6- versus 9-lineup members. Most of the comparisons did not show appreciable differences, but one comparison did: simultaneous presentation yielded better discriminability than sequential presentation. If the results replicate, then policymakers should recommend using a simultaneous lineup procedure. Moreover, consistent with previous research, identifications made with high confidence were higher in reliability than identifications made with low confidence. Thus, official lineup protocols should require collecting confidence because of the diagnostic value added. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Developmental trends in lineup performance: Adolescents are more prone to innocent bystander misidentifications than children and adults.

We tested developmental trends in eyewitness identification in biased and unbiased lineups. Our main interest was adolescent's lineup performance compared with children and adults. 7-10-year-olds, 11-13-year-olds, 14-16-year-olds, and adults (N = 431) watched a wallet-theft-video and subsequently identified the thief, victim, and witness from simultaneous target-present and target-absent six-person photo lineups. The thief-absent lineup included a bystander previously seen in thief proximity. Research on unconscious transference suggested a selection bias toward the bystander in adults and 11-13-year-olds, but not in younger children. Confirming our hypothesis, adolescents were more prone to bystander bias than all other age groups. This may be due to adolescents making more inferential errors than children, as predicted by fuzzy-trace theory and associative-activation theory, combined with lower inhibition control in adolescents compared with adults. We also replicated a clothing bias for all age groups and age-related performance differences in our unbiased lineups. Consistent with previous findings, participants were generally overconfident in their decisions, even though confidence was a better predictor of accuracy in older compared with younger participants. With this study, we show that adolescents have an increased tendency to misidentify an innocent bystander. Continued efforts are needed to disentangle how adolescents in comparison to other age groups perform in forensically relevant situations.

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

Mugshot’s Bias: A Semantic History of Guilt

There is a serious problem of innocent people being sentenced to prison in the United States. According to a study by the Innocence Project organization, between 2.3% and 5% of prisoners are innocent. The lowest percentage of this figure would imply that over 46,000 innocent people are incarcerated. Eyewitness misidentification is the most common factor involved in miscarriages of justice. Although numerous studies have identified the reasons behind these errors, and various proposals have made to avoid misidentifications in photo lineups, there appears to be no research on the impact of the mugshot as an unmistakable type of image. This paper demonstrates, from the field of visual culture and with a historical semantic consideration of the advent of police portraiture in the United States, that mugshots carry a stigma of guilt. When a witness is shown such photographs, not only do they see the objective description of an individuals’ physical features but juxtapose the mark of criminality to these portraits. This mark increases the likelihood of the witness choosing one of the pictures even though none of the individuals in them is guilty of the crime under investigation.

Estimating the reliability of eyewitness identifications from police lineups

Laboratory-based mock crime studies have often been interpreted to mean that (i) eyewitness confidence in an identification made from a lineup is a weak indicator of accuracy and (ii) sequential lineups are diagnostically superior to traditional simultaneous lineups. Largely as a result, juries are increasingly encouraged to disregard eyewitness confidence, and up to 30% of law enforcement agencies in the United States have adopted the sequential procedure. We conducted a field study of actual eyewitnesses who were assigned to simultaneous or sequential photo lineups in the Houston Police Department over a 1-y period. Identifications were made using a three-point confidence scale, and a signal detection model was used to analyze and interpret the results. Our findings suggest that (i) confidence in an eyewitness identification from a fair lineup is a highly reliable indicator of accuracy and (ii) if there is any difference in diagnostic accuracy between the two lineup formats, it likely favors the simultaneous procedure.

The Role of Site Variance in the American Judicature Society Field Study Comparing Simultaneous and Sequential Lineups

Police departments often use photo lineups for eyewitness identification purposes. A widely adopted lineup reform designed to reduce eyewitness misidentifications involves switching from the standard simultaneous photo presentation format to a sequential format. These two lineup procedures were recently tested in the American Judicature Society (AJS) field study, which was conducted in four different police jurisdictions. The results from two phases of that investigation reached opposite conclusions as to which lineup procedure is superior, and the purpose of our current investigation was to elucidate the role of site variance in shaping those contrasting conclusions. In previous analyses, the field study data were either (1) aggregated across all four study sites or (2) drawn from only one study site (Austin, Texas). Here, we analyze the data separately for the Austin study site, where 69 % of the eyewitnesses were tested, and the other three study sites combined, where 31 % of the eyewitnesses were tested. The results indicate significant site variance between the Austin and non-Austin study sites. In addition, the results suggest that aggregating the data across sites played a determinative role in creating the apparent disagreement about which lineup procedure is diagnostically superior. Once large differences across the AJS study sites are taken into consideration, there is no longer any disagreement about which lineup procedure is superior. The simultaneous procedure is diagnostically superior to the sequential procedure, but the sequential procedure sometimes induces more conservative responding (a result that can and often does masquerade as diagnostic superiority).

Double-blind photo lineups using actual eyewitnesses: an experimental test of a sequential versus simultaneous lineup procedure.

Eyewitnesses (494) to actual crimes in 4 police jurisdictions were randomly assigned to view simultaneous or sequential photo lineups using laptop computers and double-blind administration. The sequential procedure used in the field experiment mimicked how it is conducted in actual practice (e.g., using a continuation rule, witness does not know how many photos are to be viewed, witnesses resolve any multiple identifications), which is not how most lab experiments have tested the sequential lineup. No significant differences emerged in rates of identifying lineup suspects (25% overall) but the sequential procedure produced a significantly lower rate (11%) of identifying known-innocent lineup fillers than did the simultaneous procedure (18%). The simultaneous/sequential pattern did not significantly interact with estimator variables and no lineup-position effects were observed for either the simultaneous or sequential procedures. Rates of nonidentification were not significantly different for simultaneous and sequential but nonidentifiers from the sequential procedure were more likely to use the "not sure" response option than were nonidentifiers from the simultaneous procedure. Among witnesses who made an identification, 36% (41% of simultaneous and 32% of sequential) identified a known-innocent filler rather than a suspect, indicating that eyewitness performance overall was very poor. The results suggest that the sequential procedure that is used in the field reduces the identification of known-innocent fillers, but the differences are relatively small.

Witnesses' Blindness for their Own Facial Recognition Decisions: A Field Study

In a field study, we examined choice blindness for eyewitnesses' facial recognition decisions. Seventy-one pedestrians were engaged in a conversation by two experimenters who pretended to be tourists in the center of a European city. After a short interval, pedestrians were asked to identify the two experimenters from separate simultaneous six-person photo lineups. Following each of the two forced-choice recognition decisions, they were confronted with their selection and asked to motivate their decision. However, for one of the recognition decisions, the chosen lineup member was exchanged with a previously unidentified member. Blindness for this identity manipulation occurred at the rate of 40.8%. Furthermore, the detection rate varied as a function of similarity (high vs. low) between the original choice and the manipulated outcome. Finally, choice manipulations undermined the confidence-accuracy relation for detectors to a greater degree than for blind participants. Stimulus ambiguity is discussed as a moderator of choice blindness.

Selecting the Suspect: An Eye-Tracking Comparison of Viewing of Same-Race vs. Cross-Race Photographs in Eyewitness Identification

An eye-tracking study was conducted to examine cross-race recognition deficit (CRRD) or own-race bias in cross-racial eyewitness identification. The eye-tracking data revealed differences between Anglo eyewitness viewing and African American eyewitness viewing of the same-race photo lineups. Variations in scan path complexity and sequential patterns suggest a “mixed strategy” for scanning the photographic lineups was more common than an “absolute” or “relative” strategy.

A comparison of video and static photo lineups with child and adolescent witnesses

AbstractIn the UK video parades are the preferred method of identification employed in criminal cases. This policy implementation has been employed with little or no evidence concerning its validity. The reported research examines the effect of new video technology on children's identification evidence. The study compared 7–9 and 13–15‐year olds' ability to make identifications from either video or static photo lineups. Two hundred and fifteen participants witnessed a live event and then after a delay of 2–3 days viewed a target present (TP), or target absent (TA) video or photo lineup. For video and photo TP lineups, correct responses did not differ as a function of age. Video lineups produced lower rates of false identifications for the TA lineups, but only for adolescent witnesses. It is concluded that there is nothing contra‐indicated in the use of video identification procedures with children, and possibly certain benefits can accrue from its use. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

A problem with double-blind photospread procedures: Photospread administrators use one eyewitness's confidence to influence the identification of another eyewitness.

In Experiment 1, photospread administrators (PAs, N = 50) showed a target-absent photospread to a confederate eyewitness (CW), who was randomly assigned to identify one photo with either high or low confidence. PAs subsequently administered the same target-absent photospread to participant eyewitnesses (PWs, N = 50), all of whom had viewed a live staged crime 1 week earlier. CWs were rated by the PAs as significantly more confident in the high-confidence condition versus low-confidence condition. More importantly, the confidence of the CW affected the identification decision of the PW. In the low-confidence condition, the photo identified by the CW was identified by the PW significantly more than the other photos; there was no significant difference in photo choice in the high-confidence condition. In spite of the obvious influence exerted in the low-confidence condition, observers were not able to detect bias in the photospread procedures. A second experiment was conducted to test a post-hoc explanation for the results of Experiment 1: PAs exerted influence in the low-confidence condition because they perceived the task as more difficult for the eyewitness than in the high-confidence condition. Independent observers (N = 84) rated the difficulty of the confederate's task as higher in the low-confidence condition compared with the high-confidence condition, suggesting that expectations of task difficulty might be driving the effect observed in Experiment 1. Results support recommendations for double-blind photospreads and emphasize that the same investigator should not administer photo lineups to multiple eyewitnesses in an investigation.

Eyewitnesses: A comparison of live, video, and photo line-ups

Bij een live confrontatiemethode wordt iemand minder vaak onterecht aangewezen dan bij een video of fotoconfrontatie. Het aantal correctie identificaties was over alle methoden gelijk.

Eyewitness memory for arousing events: putting things into context

AbstractIf attention is focused on central details at high levels of arousal, memory for peripheral details should be diminished (Easterbrook, 1959). If this is the case, contextual reinstatement (CR) procedures should not enhance memory because these procedures specifically use peripheral information to cue memory. The present experiment tested how arousal influenced eyewitness memory for an event and how it interacts with CR procedures. Participants first viewed one of three series of slides (neutral, arousal, or unusual/control). Memory for central and peripheral details was tested via photo lineups and recognition tests. Although CR procedures enhanced recognition memory for non‐arousing and unusual events, they did not affect recognition memory for arousing events. Analyses of the peripheral photo lineup and peripheral recognition test data revealed that CR enhanced the hit rate for the neutral and unusual conditions but not for the arousal condition. Although CR procedures tended to enhance recognition of central information (increasing the hit rate and decreasing the false alarm rate), CR had a smaller enhancement effect in the arousal condition relative to the neutral and unusual conditions. The present experiment also replicates the Christianson and Loftus (1991) finding that peripheral information is not remembered as well in an arousing event, as compared to memory of neutral and unusual events. The theoretical and applied implications of these results are discussed. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Applied issues in the construction and expert assessment of photo lineups

Applied issues in the construction and expert assessment of photo lineups

Applied issues in the construction and expert assessment of photo lineups

Issues surrounding lineup fairness have been explored scientifically for over two decades. The present study investigates the applied/external validity of this line of research. First, several factors leading to bias in the construction of photo lineups are examined, and results of a preliminary survey on current law-enforcement practices are presented. Several statistics that have been developed to assess the fairness of lineups are reviewed and the application of these techniques to lineups used in 18 criminal cases is discussed, including the mixed agreement that sometimes occurs between estimates. Finally, we address the usefulness of lineup fairness assessment for expert testimony in the courtroom, and the dilemma that may be faced by the expert witness who is asked to testify by the defence. It is suggested that a useful and empirically justified index of overall lineup fairness can be created by combining a single estimate of bias (Functional Size) and a single estimate of lineup size (Effective Size) into a four-point index. Copyright © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Identification of computer-generated facial composites.

Two studies examined the effectiveness of the Mac-a-Mug Pro, a computerized facial composite production system. In the first study, college freshmen prepared from memory composites of other students and faculty from their former high schools. Other students who had attended the same high schools could not recognize the composites of either students or faculty members when the composites of individuals known to them (n = 10) were mixed with composites of a large number (n = 40) of strangers. Neither preparer familiarity with the target, preparer-assessed composite quality, nor viewer familiarity predicted composite recognition. Study 2 indicated that naive witnesses who viewed the composites could not select the people depicted in the composites from photo lineups (1 target and 4 foils). The results raise questions about the efficacy of composite systems as tools to promote recognition of suspects in criminal contexts.

Face and voice identifications in showups and lineups

AbstractWitnesses were asked to identify a young adult female target to whom they had spoken for 15 seconds five minutes earlier in a naturalistic field setting. Subjects were given a single facial photograph or a single tape‐recorded voice of either the target or a highly similar foil, or a target‐present or target‐absent six‐person photo lineup or six‐person voice lineup. Identification of the target was superior in the six‐person photo lineup than in the one‐person photo lineup when choices were corrected for guessing. False identifications of the ‘innocent’ suspect did not differ in one‐person and six‐person photo lineups. However, the diagnosticity index indicated that witnesses were twice as likely to be more accurate than inaccurate in making a selection with the six‐person photo lineup than in the one‐person lineup. Performance was poor in both one‐person and six‐person voice lineups. With the exception of the target‐absent one‐person photo lineup, no significant correlations were found between confidence and performance.