Target-present Lineups Research Articles

The masked villain: the effects of facial masking, distance, lighting, and eyewitness age on eyewitness identification accuracy

ABSTRACT Distance, lighting, and facial masking negatively impact eyewitness identification accuracy. We investigated their combined effect on accuracy and how internal (e.g., eyes) versus external (e.g., hair) masking impacts accuracy. Using live targets witnessed by 1325 participants, we investigated the effects of distance (5m, 12.5m, 20m), lighting (optimal:300lx, suboptimal:2lx), facial masking (no facial masking, sunglasses, hood, sunglasses & hood), and eyewitness age (5-90) on identification accuracy in target-present (TP) or target-absent (TA) eight-person simultaneous photograph line-ups. TP identification accuracy, with no facial masking, for all participants was .69 (.96 for only 18-44-year-old choosers) at 5m, .34 (.58) at 12.5m, and .17 (.42) at 20m. TA rejection accuracy for all participants was .63 (.60 for only 18-44-year-olds) at 5m, .42 (.54) at 12.5m, and .46 (.46) at 20m. Facial masking further decreased accuracy; internal facial masking had the strongest negative effect. The combined negative effects of distance, lighting, and facial masking resulted in chance-level performance in TP line-ups (i.e., .125) in some instances. We also found a positive association between accuracy and high confidence and shorter response times. We recommend that law enforcement agencies and researchers report these variables to allow for the postdiction of the likely accuracy of an eyewitness decision.

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.

Appearances can be deceiving: how naturalistic changes to target appearance impact on lineup-based decision-making

ABSTRACT The present study examined the influence of appearance, procedure and position on identification decisions, post-decisional confidence ratings and estimates of discrimination and confidence-specific accuracy. Regarding appearance, the study examined the combined influence of three naturalistic changes that occur day-to-day (i.e. a reduction in cranial hair length, the removal of stubble, and a change of clothing), two of which have not been considered before in a lineup-decision context. Participants (N = 350) completed four experimental lineups which involved: viewing a target person, completing a brief distractor task, and making an identification decision and a post-decisional confidence rating from a photographic lineup. Participants were randomly allocated to complete simultaneous or sequential lineups, with appearance (no change, change), position (early, late) and target (present, absent) systematically varied across the four trials. Appearance affected all dependent measures and was particularly influential in target-present lineups. Naturalistic changes to target appearance reliably decreased correct identification rates, confidence in correct identifications, discrimination accuracy, and confidence-specific accuracy. Procedure and position, by contrast, had a more limited impact. Of concern for the criminal justice system, neither procedure nor position manipulations offset any reductions in lineup-decision accuracy when target appearance changed.

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.

"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).

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.

The distance threshold of reliable eyewitness identification.

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) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Children’s Eyewitness Lineup Accuracy One Year Later: The Role of Social Support and Working Memory Capacity

Children’s ability to identify perpetrators who are strangers is crucial. Both failures to identify actual perpetrators and false accusations have serious costs for children’s personal security and wellbeing or for innocent suspects. In the current study, we investigated the accuracy of children’s person identification after a very long delay (one year) and, for the first time, as a function of interviewer-provided socio-emotional support, children’s pre-existing social support reserves, state anxiety, and individual differences in children’s working memory capacity. One year after a play session, 7- to 8-year-old children were asked to identify a stranger from a target-present lineup that included four pictures, a “She’s not here” card, and an “I don’t know” option in the form of a question mark card. Overall, children made few correct identifications, but also few false identifications, preferring to give “I do not know” responses or incorrectly stating the person was not in the lineup. Contrary to predictions, there were no main effects of interviewer-provided social support nor of social support reserves, but as predicted, children with higher working memory capacity performed significantly more accurately than did children with lower working memory capacity, regardless of interview condition. Children’s state anxiety and their confidence in the identification were unrelated to their performance, although interviewer support did decrease state anxiety. Implications of these findings for children’s personal safety are discussed.

Kısmi Hafıza: Kapsamlı Yüzleştirmeye Başvurulması için Bir Başka Neden mi?

Introduction: The 48-person lineup has been found to decrease substantially mistaken identifications, with little cost to correct ones. The goal of this experiment was to increase correct identifications. Purpose: Study 1 attempted to increase identifications in the 48-person lineup by omitting the warning that the target may not be in the lineup. Study 2 aimed at examining potential reasons why the attempt failed. Method: In study 1 a 48-person lineup was shown, with or without the warning and with the target present or absent. In study 2 target-present lineups were shown, either a six-person or 48-person lineup. All were then asked to count the number of lineup members that they could discount as not being the target. Results: Study 2 found that after discounting six-person lineups were left with 1 lineup member, in 48-person ones 8.3.no difference in the number of identifications between the two warning conditions. Six-person lineups yielded more identifications. Conclusions: The results suggest that witnesses in 6-person lineups achieve more identifications by discounting lineup members and guessing from the remaining. Further research is suggested. Keywords: Eyewitness identification, 48-person lineups, partial memory

Missing Children Photograph Appeals: Does the Number of Appeals Affect Identification Accuracy Following a Short Recall Delay?

The study objectives were (1) to determine if there were any associations between the time spent observing fictional appeals and identification accuracy, (2) to establish if the number of missing children photographs observed influences identification accuracy and (3) to determine whether the number of missing children appeals observed influences identification accuracy following a short 3-day delay. A two-stage approach was utilised. Two hundred and forty-two participants observed one, four or eight mock missing children photographs followed by a short word memory distraction task and a target present line-up identification task. The second stage comprised of another target present line-up identification task presented after a short 3-day delay. One-way between-group ANOVAs indicate that observing one missing child photograph has significantly greater overall identification accuracy and lower identification error than viewing four or eight photographs immediately after observing the appeal and following a 3-day delay. Additional analyses found that the identification accuracy was significantly higher immediately after observation compared with the identification accuracy following a 3-day delay. The findings demonstrate the necessity for improving missing children appeals. Due to the exploratory nature of the study, additional research is required to explore these factors further.

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.

Does filler database size influence identification accuracy?

Police departments increasingly use large photo databases to select lineup fillers using facial recognition software, but this technological shift's implications have been largely unexplored in eyewitness research. Database use, particularly if coupled with facial matching software, could enable lineup constructors to increase filler-suspect similarity and thus enhance eyewitness accuracy (Fitzgerald, Oriet, Price, & Charman, 2013). However, with a large pool of potential fillers, such technologies might theoretically produce lineup fillers too similar to the suspect (Fitzgerald, Oriet, & Price, 2015; Luus & Wells, 1991; Wells, Rydell, & Seelau, 1993). This research proposes a new factor-filler database size-as a lineup feature affecting eyewitness accuracy. In a facial recognition experiment, we select lineup fillers in a legally realistic manner using facial matching software applied to filler databases of 5,000, 25,000, and 125,000 photos, and find that larger databases are associated with a higher objective similarity rating between suspects and fillers and lower overall identification accuracy. In target present lineups, witnesses viewing lineups created from the larger databases were less likely to make correct identifications and more likely to select known innocent fillers. When the target was absent, database size was associated with a lower rate of correct rejections and a higher rate of filler identifications. Higher algorithmic similarity ratings were also associated with decreases in eyewitness identification accuracy. The results suggest that using facial matching software to select fillers from large photograph databases may reduce identification accuracy, and provides support for filler database size as a meaningful system variable. (PsycINFO Database Record