Target-absent Lineups Research Articles

Lineup size influences voice identification accuracy

AbstractWe investigated the effects of lineup size, target presence, and target sex on voice identification accuracy. In Study 1, participants identified a female target from 1‐, 6‐, or 10‐voice target present or target absent lineups. Results demonstrated increasing accuracy with smaller target absent lineups. One‐voice lineups led to higher rates of innocent suspect identifications than 10‐voice lineups. In Study 2, participants identified a male or female target from 1‐, 6‐, or 10‐voice target present or target absent lineups. Results revealed increased correct identifications in 1‐ and 6‐voice and increased innocent suspect identifications in 1‐voice lineups, compared to 10‐voice lineups. Female lineups resulted in higher accuracy in target present lineups yet increased rates of innocent suspect identifications. Our findings indicate 1‐voice lineups result in both increased accuracy and increased innocent suspect identifications, a trade‐off which may not be advisable. Future research should further explore the impact of multi‐voice lineups on accuracy.

0058 The sleepy eyewitness: Self-reported sleep predicts eyewitness memory

Abstract Introduction Sleep is critical for memory, but research indicates that eyewitness identification may be an exception. We conducted three experiments to assess the effect of self-reported sleep duration and quality, and current sleepiness on eyewitness recall for a mock crime and suspect identification. Experiments 1 and 2 looked at pre-encoding sleep on lineups and showups, respectively. Experiment 3 investigated lineups across two days to assess retrieval effects. Methods Participants viewed a mock crime video then answered sleep questions as well as central and peripheral recall questions over the crime. Participants were then randomly assigned to view a fair 6-person target-present (TP) or target-absent (TA) lineup for experiments 1 and 3, or a TP or TA showup for experiment 2. In experiment 3, the recall questions and lineups occurred on day 2, but the sleep questions were asked both days. Decision confidence was provided after the identification procedure. Results Sleep quality predicted central recall for experiment 1 [F(1, 3834)=12.96, p<.001] whereas sleep quantity predicted central recall for experiment 2, F(1, 2712)=36.22, p< .001. Choosing rate for pre-encoding sleep was higher for low quality [X2(1)=29.10, p<.001] and low duration [X2(1)=20.15, p<.001], but false IDs were lower for high duration [X2(1)=29.76, p<.001] and high quality, X2(1)=35.47, p<.001. High quality self-reported sleep increased discriminability for lineups, G=2.14, p=.016. False IDs for showups were lower for high duration [X2(1)=5.27, p=.024] and all three sleep questions predicted discriminability for showups: more sleep (G=2.85, p=.002), better sleep (G=2.60, p=.005), and less sleepiness, G=2.44, p=.007. Showups had greater accuracy (p=.038) and a stronger confidence-accuracy relationship (p<.001) for the average of the “good sleep” conditions than the average of the three “bad sleep” conditions, p=.022. In experiment 3, involving post-encoding self-reported sleep, there were still effects on recall but minimal effects on eyewitness identification (and no effects on discriminability). Conclusion Self-reported sleep for the night prior to the crime could be an important individual difference variable for eyewitness memory, affecting encoding more than post-encoding processes. Support (if any) This project was supported by Grant 2018-R2-CX-0027 awarded by the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, and U.S. Department of Justice.

The role of experimenter familiarity in children’s eyewitness identification

Child eyewitnesses show a high false identification rate on target-absent (TA) lineups despite good performance on target-present (TP) lineups. One explanation is that children feel a social pressure to choose when presented with a TA lineup. We investigated whether experimenter familiarity would reduce social pressure and improve accuracy on TA lineups. Children (5–7 years, N = 120) watched a short video of a staged theft; 1–2 days later they completed a TP or TA lineup with a familiar or unfamiliar experimenter. Experimenter familiarity had an impact on lineup response in TA lineups only, with more correct ‘not there’ and fewer ‘not sure’ responses when the children were familiar with the experimenter. The results provide further evidence to support the social aspect of eyewitness identification decisions in children and provide a possible strategy to improve identification accuracy for those working with children in the criminal justice system.

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.

Validity of mock-witness measures for assessing lineup fairness

ABSTRACT Although eyewitness researchers have used mock-witness measures to assess aspects of lineup fairness, they have paid little attention to their validity. The current study tested predictive validity, convergent validity, and discriminant validity of mock-witness measures from a meta-analytic perspective. Overall, mock-witness measures had predictive validity, particularly in target-absent (TA) lineups – the lineup fairness estimated by the measures reliably predicted eyewitnesses’ choosing behaviors and discriminability of a suspect from fillers in TA lineups. However, correlations between lineup fairness estimated by mock-witnesses and eyewitness performance were significant in target-present (TP) lineups only when eyewitnesses had a moderate memory for the perpetrator. Multitrait-multimethod correlations demonstrated significant intradomain correlations between mock-witness measures and other lineup fairness indices and nonsignificant interdomain correlations between the mock-witness measures and indices reflecting memory strength for the perpetrator, which supported convergent validity and discriminant validity, respectively. The implications for research and practice are discussed.

From Witness to Web Sleuth: Does Citizen Enquiry on Social Media Affect Formal Eyewitness Identification Procedures?

Eyewitnesses to crimes may seek the perpetrator on social media prior to participating in a formal identification procedure, but the effect of this citizen enquiry on the accuracy of eyewitness identification is unclear. The current study used a between-participants design to address this question. Participants viewed a crime video, and after a 1–2-day delay were either exposed to social media including the perpetrator, exposed to social media that substituted an innocent suspect for the perpetrator, or not exposed to social media. Seven days after viewing the crime video, all participants made an identification from a video lineup. It was predicted that exposure to social media that did not contain the guilty suspect would reduce the accuracy of subsequent identifications. Analysis revealed no association between social media exposure and lineup response for target present lineups. For target absent lineups, there was a significant association between social media exposure and lineup response, but this was driven by a higher number of correct rejections for participants who saw the guilty suspect on social media. The results suggest that at least in some circumstances, witnesses searching social media do not have a negative effect on formal ID procedures.

Can Familiarity Between an Adolescent Eyewitness and a Perpetrator Influence Identification Accuracy?

Most eyewitness research focuses on stranger identifications, despite the fact that eyewitnesses may also be asked to identify a familiar person. The current study examined the role of eyewitness-perpetrator familiarity and line-up procedure on adolescent eyewitness identification accuracy. Familiarity was manipulated wherein participants (N = 623) directly interacted, indirectly interacted, or did not meet a confederate before viewing the confederate commit a mock crime. Lineup procedure (simultaneous, sequential, elimination-plus) and target presence were manipulated. Familiarity increased the likelihood of correct identifications in target-present lineups when the sequential lineup procedure was used, whereas familiarity increased the likelihood of correct rejections in target-absent lineups when the simultaneous or elimination-plus procedures were used. These findings suggest that familiarity with a perpetrator can influence identification accuracy.

Optimizing the selection of fillers in police lineups

A typical police lineup contains a photo of one suspect (who is innocent in a target-absent lineup and guilty in a target-present lineup) plus photos of five or more fillers who are known to be innocent. To create a fair lineup in which the suspect does not stand out, two filler selection methods are commonly used. In the first, fillers are selected if they are similar in appearance to the suspect. In the second, fillers are selected if they possess facial features included in the witness's description of the culprit (e.g., "20-y-old white male"). The police sometimes use a combination of the two methods by selecting description-matched fillers whose appearance is also similar to that of the suspect in the lineup. Decades of research on which approach is better remains unsettled. Here, we tested a counterintuitive prediction made by a formal model based on signal detection theory: From a pool of acceptable description-matched photos, selecting fillers whose appearance is otherwise dissimilar to the suspect should increase the hit rate without affecting the false-alarm rate (increasing discriminability). In Experiment 1, we confirmed this prediction using a standard mock-crime paradigm. In Experiment 2, the effect on discriminability was reversed (as also predicted by the model) when fillers were matched on similarity to the perpetrator in both target-present and target-absent lineups. These findings suggest that signal-detection theory offers a useful theoretical framework for understanding eyewitness identification decisions made from a police lineup.

Eyewitness identification performance is not affected by time-of-day optimality

The circadian rhythm regulates arousal levels throughout the day and determines optimal periods for engaging in mental activities. Individuals differ in the time of day at which they reach their peak: Morning-type individuals are at their best in the morning and evening types perform better in the evening. Performance in recall and recognition of non-facial stimuli is generally superior at an individual’s circadian peak. In two studies (Ns = 103 and 324), we tested the effect of time-of-testing optimality on eyewitness identification performance. Morning- and evening-type participants viewed stimulus films depicting staged crimes and made identification decisions from target-present and target-absent lineups either at their optimal or non-optimal time-of-day. We expected that participants would make more accurate identification decisions and that the confidence-accuracy and decision time-accuracy relationships would be stronger at optimal compared to non-optimal time of day. In Experiment 1, identification accuracy was unexpectedly superior at non-optimal compared to optimal time of day in target-present lineups. In Experiment 2, identification accuracy did not differ between the optimal and non-optimal time of day. Contrary to our expectations, confidence-accuracy relationship was generally stronger at non-optimal compared to optimal time of day. In line with our predictions, non-optimal testing eliminated decision-time-accuracy relationship in Experiment 1.

Individual differences in emotion regulation and face recognition.

Face recognition ability is highly variable among neurologically intact populations. Across three experiments, this study examined for the first time associations between individual differences in a range of adaptive versus maladaptive emotion regulation strategies and face recognition. Using an immediate face-memory paradigm, in which observers had to identify a self-paced learned unfamiliar face from a 10-face target-present/ target-absent line-up, Experiment 1 (N = 42) found high levels of expressive suppression (the ongoing efforts to inhibit emotion-expressive behaviors), but not cognitive reappraisal (the cognitive re-evaluation of emotional events to change their emotional consequences), were associated with a lower level of overall face-memory accuracy and higher rates of misidentifications and false positives. Experiment 2 (N = 53) replicated these finding using a range of face-matching tasks, where observers were asked to match pairs of same-race or different-race face images taken on the same day or during different times. Once again, high levels of expressive suppression were associated with a lower level of overall face-matching performance and higher rates of false positives, but cognitive reappraisal did not correlate with any face-matching measure. Finally, Experiment 3 (N = 52) revealed that the higher use of maladaptive cognitive emotion regulation strategies, especially catastrophizing, was associated with lower levels of overall face-matching performances and higher rates of false positives. All told, the current research provides new evidence concerning the important associations between emotion and cognition.

"The distance threshold of reliable eyewitness identification": Correction to Nyman et al. (2019).

Reports an error in "The distance threshold of reliable eyewitness identification" by Thomas J. Nyman, James Michael Lampinen, Jan Antfolk, Julia Korkman and Pekka Santtila (Law and Human Behavior, 2019[Dec], Vol 43[6], 527-541). In the article (http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000342), the authors incorrectly referred to "simple main" effects as "main effects" in four places on pp. 532-533. The authors have created a document reporting the main and simple main effects based on the original multilevel logistic regressions. These analyses support the authors' original interpretations and conclusions and can be found in the online supplemental materials. The online version of this article and online supplementary material have been corrected. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2019-38765-001.) Increased distance between an eyewitness and a culprit decreases the accuracy of eyewitness identifications, but the maximum distance at which reliable observations can still be made is unknown. Our aim was to identify this threshold. We hypothesized that increased distance would decrease identification, rejection accuracy, confidence and would increase response time. We expected an interaction effect, where increased distance would more negatively affect younger and older participants (vs. young adults), resulting in age-group specific distance thresholds where diagnosticity would be 1. We presented participants with 4 live targets at distances between 5 m and 110 m using an 8-person computerized line-up task. We used simultaneous and sequential target-absent or target-present line-ups and presented these to 1,588 participants (age range = 6-77; 61% female; 95% Finns), resulting in 6,233 responses. We found that at 40 m diagnosticity was 50% lower than at 5 m and with increased distance diagnosticity tapered off until it was 1 (±0.5) at 100 m for all age groups and line-up types. However, young children (age range = 6-11) and older adults (age range = 45-77) reached a diagnosticity of 1 at shorter distances compared with older children (age range = 12-17) and young adults (age range = 18-44). We found that confidence dropped with increased distance, response time remained stable, and high confidence and shorter response times were associated with identification accuracy up to 40 m. We conclude that age and line-up type moderate the effect distance has on eyewitness accuracy and that there are perceptual distance thresholds at which an eyewitness can no longer reliably encode and later identify a culprit. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Line-Up Image Position in Simultaneous and Sequential Line-Ups: The Effects of Age and Viewing Distance on Selection Patterns.

It is known that children and older adults produce more false alarms in target absent line-ups and that weaker facial encoding increases choosing bias. However, there has been no investigation of how age or facial encoding strength impacts line-up position selections in either sequential or simultaneous line-ups. In the present study, we presented participants with four live targets (one by one) while manipulating sequential and simultaneous line-ups between participants and target present and target absent line-ups within participants. In order to investigate facial encoding strength, we presented the targets at distances between 5 and 110 m. Our main hypotheses were that children due to deficits with inhibition would be more biased toward indiscriminate selections in the first position of sequential line-ups compared with subsequent line-up positions and that first position selections would increase for all age groups as facial encoding became weaker. In simultaneous line-ups, we expected to find a top row bias. In our sample (N = 1,588 participants; 6–77 years), we found that younger children (6–11 years) and the oldest adults (60–77 years) showed a first position bias in sequential line-ups, and as facial encoding became weaker, all age groups (6–11, 12–17, 18–44, 45–59, and 60–77 years) showed an increased tendency to make first position selections. We also found a weak top row preference in simultaneous line-ups, which was moderated by age and increased distance. The main finding is that the results suggest that younger children and the oldest adults had a tendency toward a first position selection bias in sequential line-ups. Based on the combined results, we recommend caution when using sequential line-ups with younger children or older adults.

Testing a new lineup procedure with children: The elimination with wildcard

Preschoolers' (4- to 7-year-olds) recall and correct rejection rates using the simultaneous, wildcard, elimination, and a new lineup; the elimination with wildcard were compared. The new lineup uses the traditional two judgement procedure inherent to the elimination lineup but modifies Judgement 2 by providing a wildcard rejection. Participants (N = 116) watched a 4-min video of a male target. Each participant was asked to free recall the details of the video and to answer cued recall questions about the target's appearance. Participants were then given one of the four target-absent lineups. Separating by older and younger preschoolers, the 4/5-year-olds reported an average of 1.18 descriptors with an 87% accuracy rate, while the 6/7-year-olds reported an average of 1.93 descriptors with a 91% accuracy rate. For both the older and younger preschoolers, correct rejection rates were highest for the new elimination with wildcard lineup, followed by the simultaneous lineup.

Does constructing a facial composite affect eyewitness memory? A research synthesis and meta-analysis

We conducted a meta-analysis to assess whether the construction of facial composites affects witnesses’ lineup identification decisions. We located 23 studies (56 effects, 2276 participants). We consider effects of constructing composites on (a) correct identifications, and (b) incorrect identifications, from target-present lineups, and (c) incorrect identifications from target-absent lineups. Log odds ratio effect sizes were entered into a random-effects meta-analysis. We also present novel signal detection theory analyses in an online supplement. There were no significant negative effects of composite construction, but some weak evidence that composite construction reduced incorrect identifications in target-present lineups. Because effect sizes showed little hetereogeneity for any of the outcomes (after outlier removal), there were no moderator analyses. Results for SDT measures also showed no effects. Empirical evidence suggests no effects of composite construction on identifications. We identify gaps in knowledge and make recommendations for more ecologically valid research.

Identifying the guilty word: Simultaneous versus sequential lineups for DRM word lists.

Recent research in the eyewitness identification literature has investigated whether simultaneous or sequential lineups yield better discriminability. In standard eyewitness identification experiments, subjects view a mock-crime video and then are tested only once, requiring large samples for adequate power. However, there is no reason why theories of simultaneous versus sequential lineup performance cannot be tested using more traditional recognition memory tasks. In two experiments, subjects studied DRM (Deese-Roediger-McDermott) word lists (e.g., bed, rest, tired, ...) and were tested using "lineups" in which six words were presented either simultaneously or sequentially. A studied word (e.g., tired) served as the guilty suspect in target-present lineups, unstudied related words (e.g., nap) served as fillers in target-present and target-absent lineups, and critical lures (e.g., sleep) were included in some target-present and target-absent lineups as well, to serve as attractive alternatives to the target word (or suspect). ROC analyses showed that the simultaneous test format generally yielded superior discriminability performance compared to the sequential test format, whether or not the critical lure was present in the lineup.

Children's identification of unfamiliar voices on both target-present and target-absent lineups

ABSTRACTA robust finding from the eyewitness literature is that children are as accurate as adults on target-present lineups from the age of five years, whereas they continue to make an erroneous false positive identification from a target-absent lineup up until around fourteen years of age (Pozzulo, J. D., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (1998). Identification accuracy of children versus adults: a meta-analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 22(5), 549–570). The current study explores whether the same pattern occurs when voices are used instead of faces. A total of 334 participants from six age groups (6–7-year-olds, 8–9-year-olds, 10–11-year-olds, 12–13-year-olds, 14–15-year-olds and adults) listened to a 30 second audio clip of an unfamiliar voice and were then presented with either a six person target-present or target-absent voice lineup. Overall, participants were more accurate with target-present than target-absent lineups. Moreover, performance on target-present lineups showed adult-like levels of attainment by 8–9 years of age. In contrast, performance on target-absent lineups was extremely poor, with all age groups tending to make a false identification. Confidence was higher when participants made correct rather than incorrect decisions for both types of lineup and this did not change with increasing age. Given these results, both child and adult earwitness evidence needs to be treated with considerable caution.

Variations of Salient Rejection Options: Does One Work Best for Adolescents and Adults?

Adolescents (15- to 17-years, N = 366) and adults (18- to 57-years, N = 345) were shown a videotaped theft and following a brief delay were presented with a target-present or target-absent simultaneous lineup that contained one of four variations of a “not here” graphical representation or a control with no graphical representation. Variations included: “silhouette and question mark box” vs. “silhouette box” vs. “question mark box” vs. “not here box” vs. no box (i.e., control). Lineup instructions for each option included a statement that the perpetrator may or may not be present. Participants were more likely to make an accurate identification when presented with a target-present lineup compared to a target-absent lineup. Including some form of graphical representation of “not here” did not increase the correct identification or correct rejection rates compared to when no representation was presented with the lineup. Adolescents and adults provided a comparable number of perpetrator descriptors; however, overall, adolescents produced a higher proportion of accurate responses. Participants who reported more perpetrator descriptors also were more likely to make a correct identification or correct rejection in the subsequent identification task.

A preliminary investigation on the performance of brain-injured witnesses on target-absent line-up procedures

The current study was a preliminary investigation that aimed to compare the performance of eyewitnesses with and without a brain injury on two target-absent line-up procedures: a simultaneous procedure and a sequential procedure with confidence ratings. A 2 × 2 design (N = 25) was employed, where both brain-injured (n = 15) and non-brain-injured (n = 10) participants were shown a short video of a non-violent crime taking place before taking part in either a simultaneous or sequential target-absent line-up. Participants’ general cognitive abilities and memory recall accuracy were also measured. Results found no significant differences in false identification rates between brain-injured and non-brain-injured witnesses. It was also found that participants with a greater memory accuracy were in fact more likely to make a false identification. The implications and limitations of the study are discussed.

Dance Like No One’s Watching: the Influence of Demand Characteristics When Examining Lineups via Computer or In-Person

Lineup administrators may inadvertently bias an eyewitness’ identification; as such, the blind-lineup administration is recommended to combat this bias. Three studies examined eyewitness identification accuracy when the lineup is presented on a computer versus in-person to determine whether computer-administrated lineups could replace in-person lineups to ensure blind administration. Study 1 (N = 378) varied whether the administration was on a computer versus in-person across the simultaneous, elimination, and wildcard procedures. Overall, participants were more accurate when presented with the online administration; moreover, participants were more accurate in target-absent lineups when presented with a simultaneous or elimination procedure compared to the wildcard procedure. Study 2 (N = 367) was similar to study 1 but used different stimuli and included the simultaneous, elimination, and elimination-plus procedures. Identification accuracy was comparable for online and in-person administration. Study 3 (N = 219) sought to examine why online administration was superior in study 1 by varying whether the researcher was present only during the identification task. When the researcher was present, participants were more likely to make a foil identification in the simultaneous procedure compared to the elimination procedure. The results of these three studies suggest that computer-administrated lineups may be a feasible solution to ensure blind administration.

Witnesses’ memory for events and faces under elevated levels of intoxication

ABSTRACTResearch on alcohol and witness memory has burgeoned over the last decade. However, most studies have tested participants at relatively low breath alcohol concentration (BAC) levels, unrepresentative of those encountered by officers in the field. To examine how higher intoxication levels might impair witness memory for events and faces, the current research tested participants’ ability to recall a mock crime at elevated BAC levels (>.08%). The BAC levels of bar patrons (N = 138) were recorded before witnessing a video-taped mock crime. Participants were then interviewed using free recall and cued questions and shown a six-person target-present or target-absent lineup. Results show that alcohol negatively affected both the quantity and quality of recall. Regardless of question format, alcohol also reduced the percentage of accurate information elicited from witnesses; however, only cued questions increased the percentage of inaccurate information reported. Intoxication had no effect on identification accuracy. These findings suggest that the encoding and storage systems for faces and events may be impacted differently by alcohol. Our results also highlight the importance of including higher BAC levels when examining the effects of alcohol on witness memory.