The Psychology of Lineup Identifications1

A review is made of issues and data on eyewitness identifications, and a relative-judgment conceptualization is proposed. It is argued that eyewitnesses are prone to choose the lineup member who most resembles the perpetrator relative to other lineup members as evidenced by studies that manipulated similarity of lineup members. The relative-judgment strategy is fallacious because of the unpredictable occurrence of target-absent lineups and is not corrected fully by instructions to eyewitnesses. An extension of the relative-judgment conceptualization proposes an inverse relationship between the goodness of witnesses' memories (quality and quantity of relevant information available in memory) and witnesses' tendencies to rely on relative judgments. This extended conceptualization was used to derive expectations regarding an experiment (N= 192 eyewitnesses) that used a blank lineup prior to presenting eyewitnesses with the actual lineup. The data indicated that a blank lineup can yield a diagnostic split of eyewitnesses; those who made no identification when presented with a blank lineup were less likely to make false identifications on the actual lineup than either the witnesses who identified someone from the blank lineup or the witnesses who were not presented with a blank lineup. The blank lineup did not produce a significant loss in accurate identifications. The practical implications of using blank lineups and the theoretical utility of the relative-judgment conceptualization are discussed.     

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 damaging effect of confirming feedback on the relation between eyewitness certainty and identification accuracy

The authors investigated eyewitnesses' retrospective certainty (see G. L. Wells & A. L. Bradfield, 1999). The authors hypothesized that extemal influence from the lineup administrator would damage the certainty-accuracy relation by inflating the retrospective certainty of inaccurate eyewitnesses more than that of accurate eyewitnesses (N = 245). Two variables were manipulated: eyewitness accuracy (through the presence or absence of the culprit in the lineup) and feedback (confirming vs. control). Confirming feedback inflated retrospective certainty more for inaccurate eyewitnesses than for accurate eyewitnesses, significantly reducing the certainty-accuracy relation (from r = .58 in the control condition to r = .37 in the confirming feedback condition). Double-blind testing is recommended for lineups to prevent these external influences on eyewitnesses.     

A method for increasing empirical discriminability and eliminating top‐row preference in photo arrays

It is important to consider the two parameters of signal detection theory, discriminability and response bias, when evaluating eyewitness identification from simultaneous lineups. On the basis of the diagnostic feature‐detection hypothesis, we tested a method for increasing discriminability that encourages eyewitnesses to carefully rank each lineup member based on match to their memory for a perpetrator. This procedure increased empirical discriminability and also eliminated a response bias that is largely overlooked in the literature: Participants were biased to choose from the top row of the six‐pack (2 × 3) lineup commonly used in the United States. We argue that suspect position in the simultaneous lineup is an important variable to consider for researchers and the criminal justice system. We also encourage researchers to test the ranking procedure to determine if such a simple set of instructions could be utilized by police to help eyewitnesses correctly sort innocent versus guilty suspects.     

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.     

Lineup Member Similarity Effects on Children's Eyewitness Identification

To date, research investigating the similarity among lineup members has focused on adult eyewitnesses. In the present research, children made identifications from lineups containing members of lower or higher similarity to a target person. In Experiment 1, following a live interaction, children's (6–14 years) correct identification rate was reduced in higher‐similarity relative to lower‐similarity lineups. In Experiment 2, children (6–12 years) and adults watched a video containing a target person. Again, higher‐similarity lineup members reduced children's correct identifications; however, similarity had no effect on adults' correct identification rate. Although children benefited from lower‐similarity lineups when the target was present, lower‐similarity lineups generally increased misidentifications of an innocent suspect when the target was absent. Thus, increasing similarity in lineups for children had a cost on target‐present lineups and a benefit on target‐absent lineups. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Building face composites can harm lineup identification performance

Face composite programs permit eyewitnesses to build likenesses of target faces by selecting facial features and combining them into an intact face. Research has shown that these composites are generally poor likenesses of the target face. Two experiments tested the proposition that this composite-building process could harm the builder's memory for the face. In Experiment 1 (n = 150), the authors used 50 different faces and found that the building of a composite reduced the chances that the person could later identify the original face from a lineup when compared with no composite control conditions or with yoked composite-exposure control conditions. In Experiment 2 (n = 200), the authors found that this effect generalized to a simulated-crime video, but mistaken identifications from target-absent lineups were not inflated by composite building.     

Simultaneous and sequential lineups: decision processes of accurate and inaccurate eyewitnesses

The cognitive processes and decision‐making strategies of eyewitnesses were tested for their predictive qualities in determining the accuracy of identifications from lineups. The sequential lineup presentation was compared with the traditionally employed simultaneous lineup under culprit (target) present and culprit absent conditions. Consistent with previous research the sequential presentation resulted in an equivalent number of correct identifications compared to the simultaneous lineup but reduced false identification rates. Although sequential lineups were found to be associated with the use of absolute strategies, those shown a simultaneous lineup reported the use of both relative and absolute strategies. Accurate identifications and rejections were found to be associated with the use of absolute strategies, irrespective of lineup presentation or presence of target. Also accurate identifications, at least with a sequential lineup, were generally made faster than inaccurate identifications. These results are compared to previous studies with respect to the effect that mode of processing (relative versus absolute judgements) has on a witness's decision making and identification accuracy. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Can eyewitnesses correct for external influences on their lineup identifications? The actual/counterfactual assessment paradigm

Real-world eyewitnesses are often asked whether their lineup responses were affected by various external influences, but it is unknown whether they can accurately answer these types of questions. The witness-report-of-influence mental-correction model is proposed to explain witnesses' reports of influence. Two experiments used a new paradigm (the actual/counterfactual paradigm) to examine eyewitnesses' abilities to report accurately on the influence of lineup manipulations. Eyewitnesses were administered either confirming feedback or no feedback (Experiment 1, n = 103), or a cautionary instruction or no cautionary instruction (Experiment 2, n = 114). Eyewitnesses then gave actual responses (retrospective confidence, view, and attention measures in Experiment 1; identification decision in Experiment 2) as well as counterfactual responses stating how they would have responded in the alternative condition. Results across both studies showed an asymmetric estimation of influence pattern: Eyewitnesses who received an influencing manipulation estimated significantly less of a change in their responses than eyewitnesses who did not receive an influencing manipulation. A 48-hr delay between actual and counterfactual responses did not moderate any effects. Results are explained by witnesses' implicit theories of influence.     

The Effects of Discussion on Eyewitness Memory1

This study investigated the effects of witness discussion on the accuracy of recall and misidentifications in eyewitness memory. Dyadic groups who discussed the crime and dyads who made joint memorial decisions about the incident were more accurate in recall than were dyads who discussed noncriminal matters, and a no-discussion group. Collaborative dyads giving joint decisions also were significantly more accurate than were the other groups in rejection of the culprit-absent lineup. The sequential lineup method proved superior to the simultaneous method, regardless of whether or not witnesses discussed the crime prior to identification. It was concluded that discussion and joint decision making by 2 eyewitnesses can improve both eyewitness recall and minimize false identifications in some circumstances.     

Eyewitness decisions in simultaneous and sequential lineups: A dual-process signal detection theory analysis

Many eyewitness researchers have argued for the application of a sequential alternative to the traditional simultaneous lineup, given its role in decreasing false identifications of innocent suspects (sequential superiority effect). However, Ebbesen and Flowe (2002) have recently noted that sequential lineups may merely bring about a shift in response criterion, having no effect on discrimination accuracy. We explored this claim, using a method that allows signal detection theory measures to be collected from eyewitnesses. In three experiments, lineup type was factorially combined with conditions expected to influence response criterion and/or discrimination accuracy. Results were consistent with signal detection theory predictions, including that of a conservative criterion shift with the sequential presentation of lineups. In a fourth experiment, we explored the phenomenological basis for the criterion shift, using the remember-know-guess procedure. In accord with previous research, the criterion shift in sequential lineups was associated with a reduction in familiarity-based responding. It is proposed that the relative similarity between lineup members may create a context in which fluency-based processing is facilitated to a greater extent when lineup members are presented simultaneously.     

The Confidence of Eyewitnesses in Their Identifications From Lineups

The confidence that eyewitnesses express in their lineup identifications of criminal suspects has a large impact on criminal proceedings. Many convictions of innocent people can be attributed in large part to confident but mistaken eyewitnesses. Although reasonable correlations between confidence and accuracy can be obtained under certain conditions, confidence is governed by some factors that are unrelated to accuracy. An understanding of these confidence factors helps establish the conditions under which confidence and accuracy are related and leads to important practical recommendations for criminal justice proceedings.     

Distortions in Eyewitnesses' Recollections: Can the Postidentification-Feedback Effect Be Moderated?

Giving eyewitnesses confirming feedback after they make a lineup identification (e.g., "Good. You identified the actual suspect.") inflates not only their recollections of how confident they were at the time of the identification, but also other testimony-relevant judgments, such as how good their view was, how much attention they paid during witnessing, and how quickly they identified the suspect. We replicated this postidentification-feedback effect with eyewitnesses who had made false identifications (N = 156), adding critical conditions in which after the identification but prior to the feedback, some eyewitnesses were given instructions to privately think about their confidence, their view, and other matters. Other eyewitnesses were given the same thought instructions subsequent to the feedback manipulation. Prior thought served to mitigate the effects of feedback, but subsequent thought did not. In addition, even without feedback, privately thinking about confidence had some confidence-inflating properties of its own.     

Individual differences in face identification postdict eyewitness accuracy

Eyewitnesses frequently mistake innocent suspects for the culprits of an observed crime, and such misidentifications have caused the wrongful convictions of many innocent people. This study attempted to establish the accuracy of individual eyewitnesses by assessing their ability to process unfamiliar faces. Observers viewed a staged crime and later tried to select the culprit from an identity lineup. This was followed by a face test that provides a laboratory analogue to lineup identifications. We found that this face test could determine the reliability of individual witnesses when a positive eyewitness identification had been made. Importantly, this was possible based on the specific response that a witness had made and without prior knowledge of whether the culprit was actually present in the lineup. These findings demonstrate that individual differences in face processing provide a potential instrument for postdicting eyewitness accuracy and for preventing miscarriages of justice.     

Consequentiality and eyewitness person identification

The role of consequentiality in eyewitness person identification was examined. Subjects viewed a videotape depicting a simulated bank robbery and were then asked to identify the robber from a photographic lineup. Consequentiality was induced by leading some subjects to believe that the video tape was of an actual bank robbery, and that performance on the identification task would be influential in the suspected robber's court trial. The following manipulations were included to determine the interaction of consequentiality with commonly investigated eyewitness variables: lineup instructions, accountability and suspect presence in the lineup. In addition, the data were analysed for sex differences. Analyses of identification attempts and hits revealed interactions indicating that men were more influenced by consequentiality and lineup instructions than women. The results suggest that consequentiality does play a role in certain eyewitness identification situations.     

Does Knowledge that a Crime Was Staged Affect Eyewitness Performance?1

The Staged crime has generally been considered a valid paradigm for assessing eyewitness identification accuracy. Yet the typical procedure informs the witness before the lineup task that the event was staged. The current study manipulated whether or not witnesses were informed that the witnessed crime was staged (information variable). Two other variables, the presence or absence of the perpetrator in the photo-lineup and the physical similarity of lineup members, were manipulated to asses any possible interactions with the information variable. A theft was staged individually for 184 unsuspecting witnesses who were then randomly assigned to be either informed that the theft was staged or not informed. Next, all witnesses were met by a uniformed security officer who showed them a photo-lineup of six individuals. Half of the witnesses viewed a perpetrator-present lineup with either high or low physical similarity between the foils and the perpatrator and half viewed a perpetrator-absent lineup with either high or low physical similarity. Three confidence measures, one cooperation measure, and an Embedded Figures Test score were obtained. The results showed that (a) the information variable did not affect the likelihood that a witness would attempt an identification; (b) the information variable did not have a main effect on the particular choices made by the witnesses nor did it interact with lineup similarity, but it did interact with the presence-absence variable; and (c) the information variable did not affect witness confidence either as a main effect or interaction effect, but, was relatively consistent in affecting the correlation between confidence and accuracy such that the correlation was lower for witnesses who were not informed. The interaction between the information variable and the presence-absence variable on accuracy was due to the uninformed witnesses being less accurate than the informcd witnesses in the perpetrator-present condition. The results suggest that accuracy among actual eyewitnesses may be lower than obtained in the typical staged crime procedure and that accuracy-confidence correlations may be overestimated by the typical staged crime.     

Children as witnesses: A comparison of lineup versus showup identification methods

The goal of this study was to compare children's and adults eyewitness identification accuracy when presented with an array of possible suspects (‘lineup’) versus one suspect (‘showup’). Kindergarten children and adults were shown a slide show of a staged theft and subsequently asked whether, of the photo or photos shown them, the perpetrator was present or not. Children were more likely than adults to identify the perpetrator correctly when that suspect was present in the lineup or showup. Children were also more likely than adults to make an incorrect identification of another person when the perpetrator's photo was not present in the lineup or showup. Because false positive identification errors are more difficult to detect with the showup than the lineup, use of the showup may be less appropriate with child witnesses than with adults due to children's greater tendency to make positive identifications.