Target-absent Lineups Research Articles

Comparing the English Video Lineup with the 48-Person Lineup

Levi has been experimenting with large lineups, in particular a 48-person lineup. After showing experimental participants a 2 minute video more than an hour before, participants were shown 4 screens of 12 lineup members. They could view the screens as often as they liked before reaching a decision. This study compared the 48-person lineup with the British lineup. Contrary to prediction, the British lineup did not outperform the 48-person one in identifications of the target. As there was also no difference in mistaken choices in target-absent lineups, as expected the 48-person lineup outperformed the British lineup, since the likelihood that the innocent suspect would be the person chosen is 1/10 in the ten-person British lineup, while only 1/48 in the 48-person lineup.

Memory strength and lineup presentation moderate effects of administrator influence on mistaken identifications.

Administrator/witness pairs (N = 313) were randomly assigned to target-absent lineups in a 2 (Suspect/Perpetrator Similarity: High Suspect Similarity vs. Low Suspect Similarity) × 2 (Retention Interval: 30 min vs. 1 week) × 2 (Lineup Presentation: Simultaneous vs. Sequential) × 2 (Administrator Knowledge: Single-Blind vs. Double-Blind) factorial design to test whether suspect similarity and memory strength constrain interpersonal expectancy effects on eyewitness identification accuracy. Administrators who knew which lineup member was the suspect (single-blind) or who administered simultaneous lineups were more likely to emit verbal and nonverbal behaviors that suggested to the witness who the suspect was. Additionally, single-blind administrators exerted more pressure on witnesses to choose the suspect as opposed to fillers. Administrator knowledge interacted with retention interval and lineup presentation to influence mistaken identifications of innocent suspects; witnesses were more likely to mistakenly identify an innocent suspect from single-blind than double-blind lineups when witness retention intervals were long and photographs were presented simultaneously. Contrary to our predictions, suspect/perpetrator similarity did not interact with other manipulated variables to influence identification decisions. Both sequential and double-blind procedures should be used to reduce the use of suggestive behavior during lineup administration. (PsycINFO Database Record

Eyewitness recall and identification abilities of adolescent and young-adults

Descriptive and identification abilities of adolescent and young-adult eyewitnesses were examined. Adolescents (M=16.41years; N=319) and adults (M=20.03years, N=300) viewed a videotape of a staged theft and then were asked to recall and identify the perpetrator from a target-present or target-absent lineup. Participants were shown one of five lineup procedures (i.e., simultaneous, wildcard, elimination, elimination-plus, or elimination with wildcard). Adolescents reported fewer descriptors compared to adult eyewitnesses, although the proportion of accurate descriptors was comparable. When examining identification accuracy, no age differences were found. Overall, participants were more accurate in target-absent compared to target-present lineups. When examining the data by target presence, there was a trade-off between the rate of correct identifications and correct rejections as a function of lineup procedure. The confidence-accuracy relationship and the relation between describing and identifying also are discussed.

The own-race bias in child and adolescent witnesses

This study investigated the own-race bias in British school children using an eyewitness paradigm. Some 319 participants viewed films of two similar staged thefts, one that depicted a Caucasian culprit and the other an Asian culprit, and then after a delay of 2–3 days, viewed a line-up for each culprit. One hundred and seventy-six of the participants were Caucasian and 143 were Asian. There were also two age groups: 164 were aged 7–9 years and 152 were 12–14 years. There was a significant own-race bias for Caucasian participants from both age groups that resulted in more correct identifications for the own-race culprit from target present line-ups and more false identifications for the target absent line-ups. Asian participants from both age groups showed no own-race bias and performed equally accurately for culprits of both races. Measures of inter-racial contact were associated with correct responses for other-race targets and revealed that the majority of Caucasian participants in the current sample had very little contact with Asians, whereas the majority of Asian participants had high levels of contact with Caucasians.

Sleep and eyewitness memory: Fewer false identifications after sleep when the target is absent from the lineup.

Inaccurate eyewitness identifications are the leading cause of known false convictions in the United States. Moreover, improving eyewitness memory is difficult and often unsuccessful. Sleep consistently strengthens and protects memory from interference, particularly when a recall test is used. However, the effect of sleep on recognition memory is more equivocal. Eyewitness identification tests are often recognition based, thus leaving open the question of how sleep affects recognition performance in an eyewitness context. In the current study, we investigated the effect of sleep on eyewitness memory. Participants watched a video of a mock-crime and attempted to identify the perpetrator from a simultaneous lineup after a 12-hour retention interval that either spanned a waking day or night of sleep. In Experiment 1, we used a target-present lineup and, in Experiment 2, we used a target-absent lineup in order to investigate correct and false identifications, respectively. Sleep reduced false identifications in the target-absent lineup (Experiment 2) but had no effect on correct identifications in the target-present lineup (Experiment 1). These results are discussed with respect to memory strength and decision making strategies.

Comparing Younger and Older Adult Eyewitnesses: Examining the Simultaneous, Elimination, and Wildcard Lineup Procedures

Older adults (60- to 99-year-olds) and younger adults (18- to 49-year-olds) viewed a videotaped theft and were then asked to provide a description of the perpetrator. Following a brief delay, participants were presented with a simultaneous, elimination, or wildcard lineup procedure that was either target-present or target-absent. Overall, younger adult eyewitnesses were more likely to be correct in their identification decisions, reported more perpetrator descriptors, and had a higher proportion of accurate descriptors compared to older adults. Moreover, the simultaneous and elimination procedures were superior to the wildcard procedure in target-absent lineups. When presented with a target-present lineup, participants were more likely to be correct when presented with the simultaneous procedure compared to the elimination procedure. Neither of the identification procedures that have been shown to be beneficial with child eyewitnesses appear to have influenced the rate of correct identification or correct rejection for older adults as a separate age group.

Are multiple-trial experiments appropriate for eyewitness identification studies? Accuracy, choosing, and confidence across trials

Eyewitness identification experiments typically involve a single trial: A participant views an event and subsequently makes a lineup decision. As compared to this single-trial paradigm, multiple-trial designs are more efficient, but significantly reduce ecological validity and may affect the strategies that participants use to make lineup decisions. We examined the effects of a number of forensically relevant variables (i.e., memory strength, type of disguise, degree of disguise, and lineup type) on eyewitness accuracy, choosing, and confidence across 12 target-present and 12 target-absent lineup trials (N = 349; 8,376 lineup decisions). The rates of correct rejections and choosing (across both target-present and target-absent lineups) did not vary across the 24 trials, as reflected by main effects or interactions with trial number. Trial number had a significant but trivial quadratic effect on correct identifications (OR = 0.99) and interacted significantly, but again trivially, with disguise type (OR = 1.00). Trial number did not significantly influence participants’ confidence in correct identifications, confidence in correct rejections, or confidence in target-absent selections. Thus, multiple-trial designs appear to have minimal effects on eyewitness accuracy, choosing, and confidence. Researchers should thus consider using multiple-trial designs for conducting eyewitness identification experiments.

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.

Evaluating lineup fairness: Variations across methods and measures.

Triers of fact sometimes consider lineup fairness when determining the suggestiveness of an identification procedure. Likewise, researchers often consider lineup fairness when comparing results across studies. Despite their importance, lineup fairness measures have received scant empirical attention and researchers inconsistently conduct and report mock-witness tasks and lineup fairness measures. We conducted a large-scale, online experiment (N = 1,010) to examine how lineup fairness measures varied with mock-witness task methodologies as well as to explore the validity and reliability of the measures. In comparison to descriptions compiled from multiple witnesses, when individual descriptions were presented in the mock-witness task, lineup fairness measures indicated a higher number of plausible lineup members but more bias toward the suspect. Target-absent lineups were consistently estimated to be fairer than target-present lineups-which is problematic because it suggests that lineups containing innocent suspects are less likely to be challenged in court than lineups containing guilty suspects. Correlations within lineup size measures and within some lineup bias measures indicated convergent validity and the correlations across the lineup size and lineup bias measures demonstrated discriminant validity. The reliability of lineup fairness measures across different descriptions was low and reliability across different sets of mock witnesses was moderate to high, depending on the measure. Researchers reporting lineup fairness measures should specify the type of description presented, the amount of detail in the description, and whether the mock witnesses viewed target-present and/or -absent lineups. (PsycINFO Database Record

The Mystery Man Can Increase the Reliability of Eyewitness Identifications for Older Adult Witnesses

Some groups of eyewitnesses, such as older adults and children, are less likely to correctly reject a target-absent (TA) line-up, as compared to younger adults. Previous research reports that using a silhouette in a video line-up called the ‘mystery man’ could increase correct rejections for TA lineups for child eyewitnesses, without reducing correct identifications for target-present (TP) line-ups (Havard and Memon in Appl Cogn Psychol 27:50–59, 2013). The current study, using older and younger adults, investigated whether using the mystery man would also increase the identification accuracy for older adults, without impairing younger adults’ identification accuracy. The results found that older adults in the ‘mystery man’ condition rejected TA line-ups significantly more often than those in the control condition (52 vs. 24 %), with no significant effect upon the TP line-ups. For the younger adults, the mystery man had no influence on identification responses for the TA or TP line-ups. Our findings suggest the mystery man technique may be beneficial for older adults, without detrimentally affecting the accuracy for younger adults, and thus could increase the reliability of eyewitness evidence, where video line-ups are employed.

The Effects of Verbal Descriptions on Eyewitness Memory: Implications for the Real-World

The criminal justice system depends on verbal accounts of crimes. Can the act of reporting a crime harm eyewitness memory for the perpetrator of that crime? The answer is yes according the verbal overshadowing effect. The verbal overshadowing effect describes the finding that memory is adversely affected after verbally describing a previously presented item (e.g., face). Often in studies of the verbal overshadowing effect, participants watch a video of a mock crime, describe the perpetrator (verbal condition) or engage in another task (control condition). In many of these studies, including the original ( Schooler & Engstler-Schooler, 1990 ) and replication studies ( Alogna et al., 2014 ), memory for a perpetrator is tested on target-present lineups, and, if described, the perpetrator is less often identified. However, it is unknown whether or not the lower identification rate is due to reduced discriminability or due to more conservative responding after providing a description. The verbal overshadowing effect ought to be defined as a reduction in discriminability, which is measured by taking both the correct ID rates (from target-present lineups) and false ID rates (from target-absent lineups) into consideration. Another important and independent measure is the reliability of identifications (i.e., the positive predictive value of a suspect identification made with a given level of confidence). As matters stand, the take-home message is this: too little information currently exists to allow for an assessment of the effects of verbal descriptions on discriminability and reliability; thus, the field is not yet in a position to offer clear guidance for practice in the criminal justice system.

Face-off: A new identification procedure for child eyewitnesses.

In 2 experiments, we introduce a new "face-off" procedure for child eyewitness identifications. The new procedure, which is premised on reducing the stimulus set size, was compared with the showup and simultaneous procedures in Experiment 1 and with modified versions of the simultaneous and elimination procedures in Experiment 2. Several benefits of the face-off procedure were observed: it was significantly more diagnostic than the showup procedure; it led to significantly more correct rejections of target-absent lineups than the simultaneous procedures in both experiments, and it led to greater information gain than the modified elimination and simultaneous procedures. The face-off procedure led to consistently more conservative responding than the simultaneous procedures in both experiments. Given the commonly cited concern that children are too lenient in their decision criteria for identification tasks, the face-off procedure may offer a concrete technique to reduce children's high choosing rates. (PsycINFO Database Record

Is ROC analysis a tool that should replace probative analysis in studying lineups?

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explain why ROC analysis is an inappropriate replacement for probative analysis in lineup research. Design/methodology/approach – Taking as the medical example comparing two methods to detect the presence of a malignant tumor (Mickes et al., 2012), and operationally defining ROC analysis: radiologists are shown the results from two methods. Their confidence judgments create a graph of correct identifications by mistaken ones. The author can compare the methods on radiologists’ ability to differentiate sick from healthy. Lineup researchers create two distinct lineups. In target-present lineups, witnesses differentiate between the target and the foils, not the target and the innocent suspect. In target-absent lineups, witnesses cannot even differentiate between innocent suspects and foils, having seen none. Findings – Eyewitness ROC curves are similar to probative analysis, but provide less useful information. Research limitations/implications – Researchers ware warned against using ROC when conducting lineup research. Originality/value – Preventing inappropriate use of ROC analysis.

The verbal facilitation effect: re-reading person descriptions as a system variable to improve identification performance

ABSTRACTWhen witnesses report a crime, police usually ask for a description of the perpetrator. Several studies suggested that verbalising faces leads to a detriment in identification performance (verbal overshadowing effect [VOE]) but the effect has been difficult to replicate. Here, we sought to reverse the VOE by inducing context reinstatement as a system variable through re-reading one's own description before an identification task. Participants (N = 208) watched a video film and were then dismissed (control group), only described the perpetrator, or described and later re-read their own descriptions before identification in either target-present or target-absent lineups after a 2-day or a 5-week delay. Identification accuracy was significantly higher after re-reading (85.0%) than in the no description control group (62.5%) irrespective of target presence. Data were internally replicated using a second target and corroborated by several small meta-analyses. Identification accuracy was related to description quality. Moreover, there was a tendency towards a verbal facilitation effect (VFE) rather than a VOE. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses confirm that our findings are not due to a shift in response bias but truly reflect improvement of recognition performance. Differences in the ecological validity of study paradigms are discussed.

The effect of choice reversals on blindness for identification decisions

ABSTRACTThe present study examined blindness for identification decisions from target-present (TP) and target-absent (TA) lineups using a field study methodology. Eighty pedestrians were exposed to a staged theft. Subsequently, they were asked to identify the thief and the victim from separate, simultaneous six-person lineups. Their identification decision concerning the thief lineup was manipulated such that participants’ selections were exchanged with a previously unidentified lineup member (choice exchange) and lineup rejections were turned into identifications (choice reversal). Participants were 7–10 times less likely to detect choice exchanges (66.7%) compared with choice reversals (11.2%). Furthermore, identification accuracy was not a prerequisite for detection. Thus, rejections and particularly selections made from both TP and TA lineups are susceptible to choice blindness. Finally, our study implies that for blindness in eyewitness identification decisions between-category changes (i.e. choice reversals) are easier to detect than within-category changes (i.e. choice exchanges).

Field study of response accuracy and decision confidence with regard to lineup composition and lineup presentation

Response accuracy with regard to lineup composition (present/absent target) and presentation (simultaneous/sequential), as well as decision confidence as a predictor and postdictor of response accuracy, was tested in a field experiment (N = 426). Overall response accuracy was 43%. It was not found significant main effects of lineup presentation or composition or a significant interaction between these variables in regard to response accuracy. By using both traditional methods of lineups’ efficiency comparison, and novel approach – ROC analysis, either procedure superiority was not revealed. Prospective confidence did not relate to response accuracy, but correct identifications were made with more retrospective confidence than were incorrect identifications. In simultaneously presented target absent lineups and sequentially presented target present lineups, correct identification resulted in a statistically significant higher level of retrospective confidence than did incorrect identifications. Participants were over-confident in their accuracy. The calibration curve, plotted for choosers, based on retrospective decision confidence was meaningful, but far from linear, while calibration curve based on prospective decision was flat. Thus the sequential lineup may not be superior to the simultaneous lineup and confidence may not be a very reliable indicator of accuracy in field setting, regardless of approach used for data analysis.

When Snitches Corroborate: Effects of Post-identification Feedback from a Potentially Compromised Source

Feedback provided to eyewitnesses can influence memory as to how confident their previous line-up selections were. Witnesses given confirming feedback remember being more confident than witnesses who are told their selection was incorrect regardless of their accuracy. This can have a powerful impact on judges and juries. In this article, we examine the effect of feedback from a ‘snitch’ (a jailhouse informant). This manipulation often occurs in real cases, despite that fact that snitches could have something to gain from providing information to police. Our participants witnessed a staged crime and then identified the perpetrator from a target-absent line-up. Two days later, participants were provided with feedback and were probed for confidence. Results show that confirming feedback from a snitch has the same effect as a confession made by the actual suspect, and disconfirming feedback reduces confidence. Implications and relation to the extant literature on eyewitness confidence are discussed.

Simultaneous, Sequential, Elimination, and Wildcard: A Comparison of Lineup Procedures

This study compared four lineup procedures: the simultaneous, sequential, elimination, and wildcard. Two hundred and sixty-nine university students (M = 20.17 years) watched a mock, videotaped crime. Then, following a brief delay, they viewed a 6-person target-present or -absent lineup using one of the four lineup procedures. For target-present lineups, correct identification rates for the four lineup procedures were comparable. In contrast, for target-absent lineups, the correct rejection rate was higher using the elimination lineup procedure compared to the wildcard and simultaneous lineup procedures. Remaining comparisons between lineup procedures found no significant differences. Also diagnosticity ratios were similar across the four procedures.

Improving children's performance on photographic line-ups: Do the physical properties of a ‘wildcard’ make a difference?

Purpose Children's performance on target-absent photographic line-ups may improve when they have the option of pointing to a wildcard – a photo of a silhouetted figure with a question mark superimposed. We investigated whether the wildcard's physical properties influence its success. Methods Children (7–11 years, N = 237) briefly saw one of two confederates during a staged event; 1–2 days later, they completed either a target-present or target-absent line-up task. Within each condition, children either saw a wildcard with a plausible silhouette (i.e., consistent with the silhouette of the target), a wildcard with an implausible silhouette (i.e., inconsistent with the silhouette of the target), a wildcard with no silhouette (i.e., a question mark only), or no wildcard. Results Wildcard condition did not influence children's target-present performance. On target-absent line-ups only the plausible wildcard increased children's accuracy above that of children in the no wildcard control condition. Conclusions The wildcard may only be successful to the extent that its silhouette is a plausible representation of the target. Possible explanations for this outcome and implications for using wildcards in investigative practice are discussed.

Face Recognition Difficulties in Children: Hits and/or Correct Rejections?

Copyright: © 2015 Megreya AM. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Face recognition difficulties during childhood are well-documented. However, mixed results were obtained regarding the precise nature of these difficulties using different experimental tasks. Using recognition memory paradigm (learning a set of faces followed by an old/new recognition test using the previously studies faces mixed with an equal set of distractors [1], children under the age of ten were found to have lower rates of hits (the correct identification of previously-seen faces) and correct rejections (the rejection of previously-unseen faces) than older individuals [2]. In contrast, using the eyewitness identification methodology (seeing a target person through a video or live staged crime followed by an identification test using two target-present and target-absent lineups [3], children over five years of age were found to produce a hit rate that is comparable to adults [4] but older children still produce lower correct rejections [5].