An evaluation of lineup presentation,weapon presence,and a distinctive feature using ROC analysis

We conducted an experiment (N = 2675) including both laboratory and online participants to test hypotheses regarding important system and estimator variables for eyewitness identification. Simultaneous lineups were compared to sequential lineups with the suspect presented early versus late because there is evidence that suspect position could be an important factor determining a simultaneous versus sequential advantage in guilty-innocent suspect discriminability. We also manipulated whether or not the perpetrator held a weapon or had a distinctive feature on his face, to re-evaluate recent evidence that these factors interact. Overall, the simultaneous lineup yielded higher discriminability than the sequential lineup, and there was no effect of sequential position. Discriminability was higher when the perpetrator had no weapon, but only when no distinctive feature was present. We conclude with a discussion of the importance of exploring interactions between system and estimator variables using Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analysis.     

Eye Remember What Happened: Eye‐Closure Improves Recall of Events but not Face Recognition

Eye‐closure improves event recall. We investigated whether eye‐closure can also facilitate subsequent performance on lineup identification (Experiment 1) and face recognition tasks (Experiment 2). In Experiment 1, participants viewed a theft, recalled the event with eyes open or closed, mentally rehearsed the perpetrator's face with eyes open or closed, and viewed a target‐present or target‐absent lineup. Eye‐closure improved event recall, but did not significantly affect lineup identification accuracy. Experiment 2 employed a face recognition paradigm with high statistical power to permit detection of potentially small effects. Participants viewed 20 faces and were later asked to recognize the faces. Thirty seconds before the recognition task, participants either completed an unrelated distracter task (control condition), or were instructed to think about the face with their eyes open (rehearsal condition) or closed (eye‐closure condition). We found no differences between conditions in discrimination accuracy or response criterion. Potential explanations and practical implications are discussed. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Effects of cannabis on eyewitness memory: A field study

Eyewitnesses to crimes are regularly under the influence of drugs, such as cannabis. Yet there is very little research on how the use of cannabis affects eyewitness memory. In the present study, we assessed the effects of cannabis on eyewitness recall and lineup identification performance in a field setting. One hundred twenty visitors of coffee shops in Amsterdam viewed a videotaped criminal event, were interviewed about the event, and viewed a target‐present or target‐absent lineup. Witnesses under the influence of cannabis remembered significantly fewer correct details about the witnessed event than did sober witnesses, with no difference in incorrect recall. Cannabis use was not significantly associated with lineup identification performance, but intoxicated witnesses were significantly better at judging whether their lineup identification was accurate. Theoretical and practical implications of the findings are discussed.     

The wildcard: A simple technique for improving children's target‐absent lineup performance

We attempted to increase children's willingness to reject target‐absent lineups by making identification and rejection response procedures highly comparable. Eight‐ to eleven‐year‐old children (N = 159) were briefly exposed to a confederate in the context of a staged event, and 24–48 hours later completed either a target‐present or target‐absent photographic lineup task. Within each lineup condition, children were either told to tell the experimenter if the target was not present (control condition), or provided with an additional photograph of a silhouetted figure with a large question mark superimposed (wildcard condition), and asked to point to this photograph if the target was not present. The wildcard increased children's accuracy on the target‐absent lineup without affecting their target‐present performance. In fact, performance was increased to a point at which target‐absent and target‐present accuracy did not differ significantly. These findings offer a promising, easily‐implemented intervention for reducing children's eyewitness identification errors. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The Weapon Focus Effect in Target‐Present and Target‐Absent Line‐Ups: The Roles of Threat,Novelty, and Timing

When an eyewitness suffers an impairment of memory for a perpetrator because the criminal used a weapon during the crime, this impairment is called the weapon focus effect. The literature is split on how this arises: Some implicate the narrowing of attentional cues to the weapon because the arousal of the victim increases, whereas others claim that the weapon is a novel object in most everyday contexts, and novel objects demand more attention than contextually appropriate ones. The current study employed a simulated crime paradigm featuring a normal, novel, or threatening object. Timing of the object's presentation was manipulated such that it was visible before, after, or during the time when the culprit's face was visible. Target‐present and target‐absent line‐ups as well as retrospective questions were administered. Both the novel object and the weapon resulted in increased mistaken identifications in target‐absent line‐ups. Structural equation modeling suggested that object novelty mediated this effect. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Faces in Motion: Age‐Related Changes in Eyewitness Identification Performance in Simultaneous,Sequential, and Elimination Video Lineups

The identification performance of children (5 to 6 years, n = 180; 9 to 10 years, n = 180) and adults (n = 180) was examined using three types of video lineup procedures: simultaneous, sequential and elimination. Participants viewed a videotaped staged theft and then attempted to identify the culprit from a target‐present or target‐absent video lineup. Correct identifications in simultaneous and elimination video lineups did not differ as a function of age. The sequential video lineup was associated with a reduction in correct identifications for both child groups compared with adults. With respect to the target‐absent lineup condition, the video elimination lineup was associated with an increase in correct rejection rates for adult witnesses. Age was also significantly associated with accuracy. Differences in correct rejection rates were observed between adults and children and also between the two child groups. Implications and future directions are discussed. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Presence of administrators differentially impacts eyewitness discriminability for same- and other-race identifications

Best practice guidelines recommend that eyewitness lineup administrators be blind to a suspect's identity, but no research has investigated whether the mere presence of a lineup administrator impacts eyewitness identification decisions. Informed by social facilitation theory, we predicted that the presence of an audience would differentially impact identification accuracy for same- and other-race identifications. Participants (N = 191) viewed same- and other-race lineups either with an audience or alone. Although the presence of an audience did not directly impact identification accuracy, significant indirect effects indicated that the audience provoked evaluation apprehension which hindered other-race identification accuracy and improved same-race identification accuracy. We suggest that using double-blind lineup procedures may not sufficiently protect eyewitness identification accuracy when making other-race lineup decisions in the presence of others.     

Enrichment processes and gain spirals at work and at home: A 3‐year cross‐lagged panel study

In this study, we combined the Job Demands‐Resources model and Conservation of Resources theory with work‐family enrichment (WFE) literature, using the Resource–Gain–Development perspective in particular, in order to (1) investigate the motivating and wellness‐promoting role of job and home resources in predicting enrichment in work and family leading to further positive outcomes, and (2) examine positive gain spirals between the study variables over time. More specifically, we investigated whether job resources predict work engagement through WFE, and similarly, whether home resources predict marital satisfaction through FWE. We also investigated the reciprocal effects between job and home resources, enrichment in both directions, and well‐being in both domains. The study was based on a two‐wave, 3‐year, full panel design among Finnish dentists (N= 1,632). Results showed that job resources at T1 predicted WFE at T2, and WFE and engagement reciprocally influenced each other over time. Home resources at T1, on the other hand, did not predict family‐work enrichment (FEW) at T2; instead, FWE at T1 influenced both home resources and marital satisfaction at T2. Moreover, we found reciprocal impacts (‘gain spirals’) between domain‐specific resources (job/home resources) and domain‐specific well‐being (engagement/marital satisfaction) and between WFE and engagement, thus supporting the Conservation of Resources theory. The same results were found for both genders, suggesting that similar enrichment processes may take place among both women and men. Theoretically, this study suggests that adding the idea of positive feedback loops might benefit the models theorizing WFE.     

Supporting child witnesses during identification lineups: Exploring the effectiveness of registered intermediaries

Performance at identification lineup was assessed in eighty‐five 6‐ to 11‐year‐old typically developing children. Children viewed a live staged event involving 2 male actors, and were asked to identify the perpetrators from 2 separate lineups (one perpetrator‐present lineup and one perpetrator‐absent lineup). Half the children took part in lineups adapted by a registered intermediary (an impartial, trained professional who facilitates understanding and communication between vulnerable witnesses and members of the justice system), and half took part in “best‐practice” lineups, according to the current guidance for eyewitness identification in England and Wales. Children receiving assistance from a registered intermediary (relative to children who received best‐practice lineups) were more accurate in their identifications for perpetrator‐present lineups, and there was some evidence that they were also more accurate for perpetrator‐absent lineups. This provides the first empirical evidence for the effectiveness of registered intermediary support during identification lineups.     

The not‐sure response option in sequential lineup practice

Field implementation of double‐blind sequential lineups has prompted a question about the impact on eyewitness decisions of an explicit not‐sure response option. In this laboratory study, a video crime was viewed by 378 participants who then attempted to identify the culprit from a six‐person sequential or simultaneous‐format lineup that either included or did not include the culprit. Witnesses were provided either dichotomous forced‐choice (FC) response categories (yes/no) or a not‐sure option as one of three response categories (yes/no/not‐sure). The not‐sure option (NSO) significantly decreased witness choosing compared to the FC condition but only for sequential lineups. Both correct identifications and false alarms decreased. Diagnosticity was greatest for a sequential lineup with a NSO. The results suggest a criterion decision shift for witnesses who view a sequential lineup with a not‐sure response option. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The Effects of the Cognitive Interview on Recall,Identification, Confidence and the Confidence/Accuracy Relationship

The effects of two interview techniques, the Cognitive Interview (CI) and the Structured Interview (SI), were examined in relation to recall, recognition, confidence and the confidence/accuracy relationship. Volunteer subjects witnessed a live staged event, and at set time delays (48 and 96 hours) were interviewed by means of either the CI or SI and made lineup identifications from both blank and filled lineup presentations. The CI significantly improved total recall (p<0.001) and correct recall (p<0.001) relative to the SI. There were no differences in either accuracy or error rates for the two conditions. The CI produced significantly higher ‘pre-post interview’ confidence ratings than the SI (p<0.05). Within-, between- and event-confidence ratings were not predictive of recall or recognition accuracy. Failure to find a significant consistent confidence/accuracy relationship was suggested to have occurred because of the operation of an accuracy assessment heuristic. The CI did not reliably improve identification from a filled lineup presentation relative to the SI, but did produce better performance on a blank lineup presentation (p<0.001). Confidence and the confidence/accuracy relationship involving identifications were not found to differ as a function of interview condition. Throughout the study multiple regression analyses failed to reveal consistent predictors of recall or recognition accuracy, confidence or the confidence/accuracy relationship of these two domains. © 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Beyond unusual? Examining the role of attention in the weapon focus effect

The current study examined whether the weapon focus effect could be accounted for in terms of stimulus novelty. Participants viewed a slideshow of a simulated event while attending to a secondary task. In the critical slide, the target was shown holding a threatening object (weapon condition), a novel object (unusual condition) or a neutral object (control condition). Reaction times on the secondary task were impaired in the weapon and unusual conditions. Participants in the weapon condition had poorest recognition scores for the target's appearance when confidence was also taken into account. Results suggest that while both unusual and threatening objects command attention, the significance of a weapon can lead to impaired performance on less immediately informative aspects of a scene such as target appearance. Copyright © 2006 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.     

A Meta-Analytic Review of the Consequences Associated with Work–Family Enrichment

Purpose

This study investigated the relationship between work-to-family enrichment (WFE) and family-to-work enrichment (FWE) with work-related, non work-related, and health-related consequences using meta-analysis.

Design/methodology/approach

We conducted a meta-analytic review of 21 studies (54 correlations) for WFE and 25 studies (57 correlations) for FWE.

Findings

We found that both WFE and FWE were positively related to job satisfaction, affective commitment, and family satisfaction but not turnover intentions. WFE was more strongly related to work-related variables, whereas FWE was more strongly related to non work-related variables. We also found that both WFE and FWE were positively related to physical and mental health. Additionally, relationships appear to depend on moderating variables including the proportion of women in the sample as well as the construct label (e.g., enrichment, facilitation, positive spillover).

Implications

Our work indicates that organizations need to consider ways to not only reduce conflict, but also increase enrichment, which will drive many important outcome variables.

Originality/value

This is the first meta-analysis on the positive side of the work–family interface.     

Biased Lineup Instructions: Examining the Effect of Pressure on Children's and Adults' Eyewitness Identification Accuracy1

Two experiments were conducted to examine the effects of pressure on lineup decisions across child and adult eyewitnesses. In both experiments, participants were exposed to a target via videotape and then presented with a 6‐person, target‐absent lineup. Pressure was manipulated via lineup instructions (neutral vs. biased instructions). With neutral lineup instructions, children had a higher false‐positive rate than did adults. With biased lineup instructions, children's patterns of false‐positive responding paralleled that of adults; that is, an increase in false positives occurred. These results suggest that social pressure may not be the only factor driving children's higher false‐positive responding, compared to adults. Potential factors that may be affecting children's lineup decision processes are discussed.     

The effect of biased lineup instructions on eyewitness identification confidence

Although it is well‐known that biased lineup instructions (i.e., those that do not inform witnesses the perpetrator may not be in the lineup) inflate false identifications, their effects on witness confidence are less well understood due to methodological limitations of past studies. We report two studies that use novel methodologies to obviate these limitations. Study 1 (N = 177) demonstrated that biased lineup instructions increased witnesses' average estimates of the likelihood that a lineup member is guilty. Study 2 (N = 137) introduces a novel debiasing paradigm that allows a parsing of choosers into those who made an identification only because of the biased instructions (induced choosers), and those who would have chosen despite the instructions (inherent choosers). Biased lineup instructions inflated confidence only among induced choosers, but not among inherent choosers. Contrary to legal reasoning, witness confidence is an insufficient metric to determine the suggestiveness of biased instructions.     

Location of a missing object and detection of its absence by infants: Contribution of an eye‐tracking system to the understanding of infants' strategies

Previous research has demonstrated infants' capacity to discriminate between situations in which all the objects successively hidden behind a screen are present, or not, after the removal of the screen. Two types of interpretation have been proposed: counting capacity or object memorization capacity. In the usual paradigm, the missing object in the impossible event is usually the last object which is placed behind the screen. Following this, a third interpretation can be offered: infants' exploration is first directed to this object's location, and its presence or absence is noticed. Two experiments using Wynn's (Nature 1992; 358 :749) paradigm were performed to test the third hypothesis. The first experiment involved four objects (teddy bears) placed in four squares. Infants looked longer at the impossible event (3 objects, the last one missing) than at the possible event (4 objects) when the impossible event was presented first. No difference in looking duration was observed for the opposite order. In the second experiment, the four objects were disposed in a line and an eye‐tracking system was used. No difference in the number of looks was observed between the impossible event (3 objects, the second one missing) and the possible event (4 objects). Therefore, it appears that at least in this complex situation (4 objects used instead of 2 usually), the location of the missing object is a key factor for event discrimination. Eye‐tracking also indicated in the second experiment that infants looked less at the second location during an impossible event (object missing) than during the possible event (object present), indicating that the impossibility of the event was not a determining factor for looking durations. Altogether, the data indicate the potential usefulness of eye‐tracking analysis in this type of situation. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Presentation procedures in lineups and mug books: a direct comparison

The purpose of this research was to replicate and to extend past findings that the best procedure for presenting lineup pictures is not the best procedure for presenting mug book pictures. Participants witnessed a videotape of a simulated crime that was followed by a lineup task for half the participants or a mug book task for the other half. The task factor was crossed with two other factors: (a) a presentation procedure factor—pictures presented one‐at‐a‐time or grouped 12 per page and (b) a presence of the perpetrator factor—perpetrator present or absent in the viewed pictures. For perpetrator‐absent conditions, the one‐at‐a time lineup procedure produced more correct rejections than the grouped lineup procedure replicating past results; however, for the mug book task the two presentation procedures did not differ. For perpetrator‐present conditions, the grouped presentation procedure produced more correct identifications than the one‐at‐a time procedure in both lineups and mug books. The different pattern of results for lineups and mug books was explained in terms of differences in response criterion. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.