Distorted retrospective eyewitness reports as functions of feedback and delay

Participant-witnesses viewed a crime video and attempted to identify the culprit from a culprit-absent lineup. The 253 mistaken-identification eyewitnesses were randomly given confirming, disconfirming, or no feedback regarding their identifications. Feedback was immediate or delayed 48 hr, and measures were immediate or delayed 48 hr. Confirming, but not disconfirming, feedback led to distortions of eyewitnesses' recalled confidence, amount of attention paid during witnessing, goodness of view, ability to make out facial details, length of time to identification, and other measures related to the witnessing experience. Unexpectedly, neither delaying the measures nor delaying feedback for 48 hr moderated these effects. The results underscore the need for double-blind lineups and neutral assessments of eyewitnesses' certainty and other judgments prior to feedback.     

The Moderating Effect of Ecphoric Experience on Post‐identification Feedback: A Critical Test of the Cues‐based Inference Conceptualization

Confidence inflation from confirming post‐identification feedback is greater when the eyewitness is inaccurate than when the eyewitness is accurate, which is evidence that witnesses infer their confidence from feedback only to the extent that their internal cues are weak. But the accurate/inaccurate asymmetry has alternative interpretations. A critical test between these interpretations was conducted by including disconfirming feedback conditions. Student participants (n = 404) witnessed a mock crime, had either a strong or weak ecphoric experience when making their line‐up identifications, and subsequently received no feedback, confirming feedback, or disconfirming feedback. Consistent with a cues‐based conceptualization of the feedback effect, disconfirming feedback influenced witnesses with weak ecphoric experiences more than witnesses with strong ecphoric experiences, ironically increasing the confidence‐accuracy relation. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Postidentification feedback effects on face recognition confidence: evidence for metacognitive influences

Information given to witnesses after an identification decision greatly alters their impressions of the original event and importantly, their identification confidence. Two experiments investigated the possibility that the effect of feedback on confidence may be altered according to the strength of the witness's cues to accuracy. Experiment 1 used a manipulation of exposure duration to alter recognition accuracy prior to the delivery of confirming, disconfirming or no feedback. While the feedback effect was not different across exposure duration conditions, decisions that were made more quickly were less likely to show large changes in confidence due to feedback. Experiment 2 manipulated the distinctiveness of faces and showed that the effects of feedback on confidence, and on the resolution of the confidence judgement, were more pronounced when disconfirming feedback was given for distinctive faces and when confirming feedback was given for typical faces. These studies showed that the impressions that participants formed of their likely accuracy might moderate the effects of feedback on decision confidence. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Memory distortion in eyewitnesses: a meta‐analysis of the post‐identification feedback effect

Feedback administered to eyewitnesses after they make a line‐up identification dramatically distorts a wide range of retrospective judgements (e.g. G. L. Wells & A. L. Bradfield, 1998 Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(3), 360–376.). This paper presents a meta‐analysis of extant research on post‐identification feedback, including 20 experimental tests with over 2400 participant‐witnesses. The effect of confirming feedback (i.e. ‘Good, you identified the suspect’) was robust. Large effect sizes were obtained for most dependent measures, including the key measures of retrospective certainty, view and attention. Smaller effect sizes were obtained for so‐called objective measures (e.g. length of time the culprit was in view) and comparisons between disconfirming feedback and control conditions. This meta‐analysis demonstrates the reliability and robustness of the post‐identification feedback effect. It reinforces recommendations for double‐blind testing, recording of eyewitness reports immediately after an identification is made, and reconsideration by court systems of variables currently recommended for consideration in eyewitness evaluations. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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.     

Co‐witness feedback in line‐ups

The aim of the current study was to establish whether feedback from a co‐witness concerning their choice of suspect could influence an individual witness' certainty and other testimony‐relevant judgements. Eighty‐two university students and members of the general public viewed a film of a staged mugging in pairs and then made an identification of who they thought was the suspect from a culprit‐absent line‐up (i.e. identification parade). The participants were then required to tell their partner whom they had identified and to fill out a questionnaire with testimony‐relevant questions (e.g. How good a view did you get of the person in the line‐up?). When the pairs of participants agreed on their choice of suspect, their scores on the testimony‐relevant questions tended to be higher than when the pairs did not agree. This shows that co‐witnesses can influence each others' memory reports when giving each other feedback after the identification process. The implications of these findings are discussed. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The effects of co-witness discussion on confidence and precision in eyewitness memory reports

We examined the influence of co-witness discussion on the metacognitive regulation of memory reports. Participants (N?=?92) watched a crime video. Later, a confederate confidently agreed with (gave confirming feedback), disagreed with (gave disconfirming feedback), or gave no feedback (control) regarding participants’ answers to questions about the video. Participants who received disconfirming feedback reported fewer fine-grain details than participants in the confirming and control conditions on a subsequent, individual recall test for a different question set. Unexpectedly, this decrease in fine-grain reporting was not accompanied by a decrease in participants’ confidence in the accuracy of their fine-grain responses. These results indicate that receiving social comparative feedback about one’s memory performance can affect rememberers’ metamemorial control decisions, and potentially decrease the level of detail they volunteer in later memory reports. Further research is needed to assess whether these results replicate under different experimental conditions, and to explore the effects of social influences on metamemory.     

Effects of mugshot commitment on lineup performance in young and older adults

Two experiments assessed the effects of mugshot commitment on the ability to make a subsequent lineup identification. Young (17–37 years) and older (55–87 years) participants viewed a crime video featuring a younger (20 years) or older (64 years) culprit. Some participants viewed a 50‐photograph culprit‐absent mugbook. Following a 1‐week delay, participants returned to view a culprit present lineup. In Experiment 1, mugbook choosers tended to select their prior selection in the lineup and mugbook nonchoosers tended to reject the lineup. In Experiment 2, mugshot choosers rejected a lineup that did not contain their prior selection. Commitment to a prior selection and commitment to a selection strategy were the cause of the majority of lineup errors. As previously reported, mugshot exposure harms subsequent lineup identification, and this appears to be primarily the result of commitment effects. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Postidentification feedback affects subsequent eyewitness identification performance

Eyewitnesses sometimes view more than one lineup during an investigation. We investigated the effects of postidentification feedback following one lineup on responses to a second lineup. Witnesses (N=621) viewed a mock crime and, later, attempted to identify the culprit from an initial (target-absent) lineup and a second (target-present or target-absent) lineup. Prior to viewing the second lineup, some witnesses received accurate feedback stating that the initial lineup did not contain the culprit. A compound-decision, signal detection approach allowed the effects of feedback on identification responses to be described in terms of differences in discriminability and response bias. For witnesses who made an incorrect foil identification from the initial lineup, feedback (vs. no feedback) was associated with poorer discriminability on the second test. For witnesses who correctly rejected the initial lineup, feedback (vs. no feedback) was associated with greater discriminability on the second test. Only witnesses who received feedback after an initial correct rejection performed at a level comparable with a single-lineup control group, suggesting that an initial identification test can impair, but not enhance, performance on a second test involving the same culprit. From a theoretical perspective, the results are consistent with the idea that the way people use memorial information when making memory decisions is flexible. Analyses of preidentification confidence ratings, obtained in a follow-up study (N=133), suggested that the effects of feedback on identification performance may have operated via differences in witnesses' metacognitive beliefs.     

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.     

Improving the identification accuracy of senior witnesses: do prelineup questions and sequential testing help?

Eyewitness research has identified sequential lineup testing as a way of reducing false lineup choices while maintaining accurate identifications. The authors examined the usefulness of this procedure for reducing false choices in older adults. Young and senior witnesses viewed a crime video and were later presented with target present orabsent lineups in a simultaneous or sequential format. In addition, some participants received prelineup questions about their memory for a perpetrator's face and about their confidence in their ability to identify the culprit or to correctly reject the lineup. The sequential lineup reduced false choosing rates among young and older adults in target-absent conditions. In target-present conditions, sequential testing significantly reduced the correct identification rate in both age groups.     

Unravelling the effects of sequential presentation in culprit‐present lineups

It is well established that sequential presentation of faces in an eyewitness situation can reduce false identification rates. The effect of a sequential presentation on the probability of accurately identifying a culprit when present in a lineup is less clear. The current study examined the efficacy of the sequential procedure in culprit present lineups approximating the real life condition where a person's appearance has changed between the time they were seen and the identification. Young (17–33 years) and older (58–80 years) witnesses viewed a video of a crime and then engaged in some filler tasks. Later they viewed a culprit‐present lineup presented in a simultaneous or sequential format. Some witnesses viewed lineups in which target appearance (hairstyle) had changed and some where it had not. Sequential testing was associated with fewer choices (hits and foil choices) as compared to simultaneous testing. A change of appearance lowered hit rates in sequential test conditions among young adults. Finally, participants in sequential conditions were more likely to report that they expected the target to be present in the lineup. We advise policy makers not to advocate sequential testing until we have a full understanding of the conditions under which the sequential‐superiority effect may be observed. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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.     

Participants' free‐hand drawings of a target face can influence recognition accuracy and the confidence–accuracy correlation

Two experiments were conducted to examine the effects of participants' free‐hand drawings on recognition accuracy and confidence for targets presented in a standard recognition paradigm and a lineup identification task. For both experiments, drawing a target influenced recognition accuracy and the confidence–accuracy correlation. In Experiment 1, the confidence–accuracy correlation was higher for participants completing a drawing than controls. Experiment 2 examined the drawings in relation to participants' decision to choose from the lineups. Once choosing was statistically controlled, the confidence–accuracy correlation for drawers was not higher than controls. These results suggest that the drawing influences the confidence–accuracy correlation by decreasing the likelighood of erroneously rejecting a target‐present lineup. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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.     

The effect of post‐identification feedback on the recall of crime and perpetrator details

The present study examines the effect of identification feedback on the quantity and accuracy of crime event details recalled, willingness to attempt misleading questions and confidence in the accuracy of these details. All participants (N = 60) viewed a short video clip of a staged building society robbery and then made a false identification of the robber from a target‐absent photospread. Eyewitnesses were next given confirming feedback (i.e. told that they had identified the suspect), disconfirming feedback (i.e. told that they had failed to identify the suspect) or no feedback. All eyewitnesses then attempted a series of short‐answer questions relating to details about the robber, accomplice, victim, building society, theft and getaway. Disconfirming feedback significantly reduced eyewitness confidence in recall accuracy but there was no significant effect of feedback on the overall quantity and accuracy of details recalled or willingness to attempt misleading questions. The theoretical implications of these results are discussed. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Post‐identification feedback: exploring the effects of sequential photospreads and eyewitnesses' awareness of the identification task

Two experiments tested whether the sequential photospread procedure would protect eyewitnesses against memory distortion from post‐identification feedback. In Experiment 1, participants (N = 245) watched a videotaped event and then viewed a sequential or simultaneous target‐absent photospread. After their identification, participants were randomly assigned to hear confirming feedback ‘Good, you identified the suspect.’ or no feedback (control). Participants then completed a questionnaire assessing testimony‐relevant retrospective judgments. Post‐hoc analyses revealed that the sequential photospread only protected against post‐identification feedback effects for participants who reported that, while they watched the video, they did not expect to make an identification. A second experiment (N = 320) was conducted to manipulate expectations about the identification task and the presence of the target. This experiment revealed that the post‐identification feedback effect persists across witnesses' expectations and lineup type. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Positive and negative effects of physical context reinstatement on eyewitness recall and identification

The impact of context reinstatement (CR) on eyewitness recall and identification was explored in this study. Participants viewed a video of a staged theft and, following a 1‐week interval, were asked to identify the culprit and recall the event in either the same or in a different physical environment. Results suggested that CR enhanced the perceived familiarity of the lineup members, which in turn increased participants' willingness to identify someone in the lineup. Although CR significantly improved facial discrimination and identification accuracy when the target was present, it also increased confidence ratings beyond that warranted by the increase in accuracy. In terms of recall, reinstating the study context improved participants' free recall of both central and peripheral details and cued recall of peripheral details. The results were consistent with a (mis)attribution of familiarity and the outshining hypothesis. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Effects of Social-Comparative Memory Feedback on Eyewitnesses' Identification Confidence,Suggestibility, and Retrospective Memory Reports

In 2 experiments, college students watched a videotaped theft and either recounted it orally or completed an objective memory test about it. Later, some eyewitnesses received either positive or negative feedback about these memory reports, suggesting a cowitness's report agreed or disagreed with theirs or that they had better or worse memory accuracy than most cowitnesses. Feedback influenced a number of subsequent memory-related responses. Witnesses who had received positive (vs. no) memory feedback later evinced heightened suggestibility in terms of accepting misinformation embedded in a memory interview and made identifications more confidently, quickly, and (in one condition) accurately. Witnesses who had received negative memory feedback evinced heightened suggestibility, made identifications less confidently, and recalled the witnessing and identification experience as involving poorer conditions for memory. Feedback appears to influence the overall self-credibility of memory, thereby altering confidence in both the feedback-specific memory and other aspects of memory for the event.     

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.