Can fabricated evidence induce false eyewitness testimony?

False information can influence people's beliefs and memories. But can fabricated evidence induce individuals to accuse another person of doing something they never did? We examined whether exposure to a fabricated video could produce false eyewitness testimony. Subjects completed a gambling task alongside a confederate subject, and later we falsely told subjects that their partner had cheated on the task. Some subjects viewed a digitally manipulated video of their partner cheating; some were told that video evidence of the cheating exists; and others were not told anything about video evidence. Subjects were asked to sign a statement confirming that they witnessed the incident and that their corroboration could be used in disciplinary action against the accused. See‐video subjects were three times more likely to sign the statement than Told‐video and Control subjects. Fabricated evidence may, indeed, produce false eyewitness testimony; we discuss probable cognitive mechanisms. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Mental Reinstatement of Context: Do individual differences in mental time travel and eyewitness occupation influence eyewitness performance over different delay intervals?

The Cognitive Interview is a memory‐enhancing interview protocol designed to optimise the access and retrieval of eyewitness memories. Its Mental Reinstatement of Context (MRC) component requires interviewees to mentally reconstruct the crime event they witnessed. Individual differences in mental time travel (MTT) relate to the extent to which a person mentally re‐experiences personal events from his or her past. Individual differences in MTT have been found to predict correct recall of a simulated crime event under immediate MRC recall conditions. To explore the relationship between MTT and performance under MRC conditions further, the present study presented a simulated crime video to 30 police officers and 26 members of the public. Eyewitness recall was tested under MRC conditions either immediately or 1 week later. Participants' general MTT and also MTT relating specifically to the crime video itself were measured via self‐report. Less correct information and more confabulations were produced after 1 week, but delay had no effect on the amount of incorrect information reported. No difference in recall was found between police officers and members of the public. Better quality MTT relating to the crime video was found to be a positive predictor of the amount of information correctly recalled under immediate conditions but not after 1 week. General MTT scores did not predict correct recall under either delay condition. Interviewers need to be aware that, due to individual differences, some witnesses may perform better under the MRC component than others.     

Postdictors of eyewitness errors: can false identifications be diagnosed?

Eyewitness researchers have "postdicted" identification accuracy using witness confidence (S. L. Sporer, S. Penrod, D. Read, & B. Cutler, 1995), response latency (S. L. Sporer, 1993, 1994), and endorsement of statements consistent with using relative versus absolute judgment strategies (D. Dunning & L. B. Stern, 1994; R. C. L. Lindsay & K. Bellinger, 1999). All of these measures were collected from 321 introductory psychology students who had viewed a staged crime and completed a lineup identification task. Some participants received feedback after identification (G. L. Wells & A. L. Bradfield, 1998). Lineup fairness was also used as a postdictor of eyewitness accuracy. Discriminant function analysis indicated that 75.2% of choosers and 63.0% of nonchoosers were correctly classified. Decision time and lineup fairness were the best postdictors of accuracy. The implications for postdicting real eyewitness decisions are discussed.     

Is saccade-induced retrieval enhancement a potential means of improving eyewitness evidence?

Saccade-induced retrieval enhancement (SIRE) is the effect whereby making bilateral saccades enhances the subsequent retrieval of memories. Two experiments explored SIRE's potential to improve eyewitness evidence. Participants viewed slideshows depicting crimes, and received contradictory and additive misinformation about event details either once (Experiment 1) or three times (Experiment 2). Participants then performed saccades or a fixation control task before being tested on their memory for the slideshows and making confidence judgements. Saccades increased discrimination between seen and unseen event details regardless of whether or what type of misinformation was presented. Because prior studies indicated that SIRE might be more robust for individuals who are strongly right-handed versus not, we examined SIRE as a function of handedness and found that saccades improved memory for event details regardless of participants' handedness. However, participants who were not strongly right-handed had fewer false memories than participants who were strongly right-handed, extending previous findings of superior memory among individuals who are not strongly right-handed. Saccades also increased confidence in true memories (Experiment 1) and decreased confidence in false memories (Experiment 2). The results support SIRE's potential to improve eyewitness evidence.     

Are two heads better than one? Peer support and children's eyewitness reports

This study examined the effects of peer support on children's event reports. In Experiment 1, 48 children aged between 5 and 10 years who had been scheduled for a school dental visit involving an invasive procedure were interviewed about it 2–4 days later. Children were interviewed alone, with an informed peer (who had also recently had a dental appointment), or with an uninformed peer. Anxiety was assessed both prior to the dental appointment and at the time of the recall interview. Peer support did not influence children's anxiety or the amount or the accuracy of information reported in prompted recall. However, younger children interviewed alone were significantly more likely to be misled than those interviewed in the presence of a support child. In Experiment 2, children aged between 5 and 7 years took part in a neutral event contrived for the study. They were interviewed about it 3 days later, either alone or with an informed or uninformed support child present. The support child was encouraged to take an active part in the interview and to help the target child to describe what happened. Peer support did not influence the recall of the target child in either prompted recall or in response to questions. However, together the target and informed support children reported more information than did children interviewed alone or with uninformed support. © 1997 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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.     

Can self-reported encoding strategy and recognition skill be diagnostic of performance in eyewitness identifications?

The relationship between 3 witness factors and identification accuracy, as well as calibration and diagnosticity of confidence, was investigated. A total of 384 participants in an eyewitness experiment rated their facial recognition skill, general memory skill, and self-reported encoding strategy on a questionnaire presented after the photo-confrontation. Participants who rated themselves to be good face recognizers showed a slightly higher overall accuracy with a more diagnostic confidence-accuracy relation. Participants who reported that they relied on a holistic encoding strategy were associated with more accurate identifications and a stronger confidence-accuracy relation than those who reported an analytic encoding strategy. Degree of self-reported general memory skill was not diagnostic of identification performance.     

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

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

How do we judge our confidence? Differential effects of meta-memory feedback on eyewitness accuracy and confidence

According to the cue–belief model, we assess confidence in our memories using self-credibility cues that reflect beliefs about our memory faculties. We tested the influence of meta-memory feedback on self-credibility cues in the context of eyewitness testimony, when feedback was provided prior to “testifying” via a memory questionnaire (Experiment 1) and after an initial memory questionnaire but before participants had to retake it (Experiment 2). Participants received feedback (good score, bad score, or none) on a fictitious scale purported to predict eyewitness memory ability. Those given good score feedback before testifying were more confident (but no more accurate) than those given bad score feedback. Feedback also affected confidence (good increased and bad decreased) and accuracy (good increased) after testifying but only on leading questions. These differential effects of meta-memory feedback on confidence for normal and leading questions are not explained by the cue–belief model. Implications for our confidence judgments are discussed.     

Asking an eyewitness to predict their later lineup performance could harm the confidence–accuracy relationship

Few studies have investigated eyewitnesses' ability to predict their later lineup performance, known as predecision confidence. We applied calibration analysis in two experiments comparing predecision confidence (immediately after encoding but prior to a lineup) to postdecision confidence (immediately after a lineup) to determine which produces a superior relationship with lineup decision accuracy. Experiment 1 (N = 177) featured a multiple-block lineup recognition paradigm featuring several targets and lineups; Experiment 2 featured an eyewitness identification paradigm with a mock-crime video and a single lineup for each participant (N = 855). Across both experiments, postdecision confidence discriminated well between correct and incorrect lineup decisions, but predecision confidence was a poor predictor of accuracy. Moreover, simply asking for predecision confidence weakened the postdecision confidence–accuracy relationship. This implies that police should exercise caution when interviewing eyewitnesses, as they should not be asked to predict their ability to make an accurate lineup decision.     

Being a good witness: The roles of benevolence and working memory capacity in rapport’s effect on eyewitness memory

Prior studies suggest that building rapport with eyewitnesses can produce measurable recall improvements, but the underlying mechanisms of rapport’s possible effects on recall remain underexplored. The present study investigated two possible mechanisms for rapport’s impact: (1) improved working memory capacity and (2) increased benevolence. Participants (N = 105) viewed a mock theft video, followed by one of two possible pre-interview interactions: rapport-building or a control interaction. Next, participants completed measures of working memory, altruism, and benevolence (pre-interview and post-interview), before recalling details of the theft. Analyses revealed that, when controlling for the effects of the interaction duration and participants’ pre- and post-interview benevolence, rapport did not affect eyewitness recall directly. However, rapport building did increase benevolence measured after and associated with the substantive eyewitness interview, which in turn predicted more accurate and new details reported, and fewer subjective/other details reported. These findings support benevolence toward the interviewer as a mechanism behind rapport’s effect on eyewitness recall. Implications for investigative interviews in relation to benevolence and motivating reciprocation are discussed.     

Examining the positive effects of rapport building: When and why does rapport building benefit adult eyewitness memory?

Most investigative interviewing protocols recommend building rapport with cooperative adult witnesses to increase the accuracy of their reports. Although a few recent studies support the benefits of rapport building on adult witness recall, no study has examined whether the timing of rapport in relation to post-event misinformation affects recall accuracy, and whether these effects are related to witness anxiety levels throughout the interview. The present study provided two hundred and thirty-three undergraduates with a videotaped mock crime followed by building high or low rapport either before or after they received post-event misinformation. All witnesses were then interviewed about the mock crime. Results indicated that high rapport before misinformation increased the amount of accurate information reported in a subsequent witness interview compared to low rapport. However, these recall benefits were not due to a reduction in anxiety. Theoretical implications and practical recommendations for police interviewing practices are discussed.