Face and voice identifications in showups and lineups

Witnesses were asked to identify a young adult female target to whom they had spoken for 15 seconds five minutes earlier in a naturalistic field setting. Subjects were given a single facial photograph or a single tape-recorded voice of either the target or a highly similar foil, or a target-present or target-absent six-person photo lineup or six-person voice lineup. Identification of the target was superior in the six-person photo lineup than in the one-person photo lineup when choices were corrected for guessing. False identifications of the ‘innocent’ suspect did not differ in one-person and six-person photo lineups. However, the diagnosticity index indicated that witnesses were twice as likely to be more accurate than inaccurate in making a selection with the six-person photo lineup than in the one-person lineup. Performance was poor in both one-person and six-person voice lineups. With the exception of the target-absent one-person photo lineup, no significant correlations were found between confidence and performance.     

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.     

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.     

Absolute and Relative Decision Processes in Eyewitness Identification

A prominent and long-standing theory of eyewitness identification decision making distinguishes between absolute judgments, based on the lineup members' match to the witness's memory of the perpetrator, versus relative judgments, based on match values relative to other lineup members. This distinction was implemented in a computational model and simulations showed that the model predicts an accuracy advantage for absolute judgments over relative judgments under some conditions. The present experiment tested this prediction by evaluating the accuracy of witnesses instructed to use relative or absolute rules. Contrary to predictions, the overall analysis did not show an absolute advantage. Additional exploratory analyses showed a relative advantage when the suspect was surrounded by high-similarity foils. These results are consistent with a model that assumes that side-by-side comparisons of lineup members increase diagnostic accuracy by allowing witnesses to give greater weight to more diagnostic features and less weight to less diagnostic features.     

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.     

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.     

Non‐blind lineup administration biases administrators' interpretations of ambiguous witness statements and their perceptions of the witness

Administering lineups “blind”—whereby the administrator does not know the identity of the suspect—is considered part of best practices for lineups. The current study tests whether non‐blind lineup administrators would evaluate ambiguous eyewitness statements, and the witness himself or herself, in a manner consistent with their beliefs. College students (n = 219) were told the identity of the suspect or not before administering a lineup to a confederate‐witness who made an ambiguous response (e.g., “it could be #3 but I'm not sure”). When ambiguous witness statements matched administrators' beliefs regarding the suspect (compared with when they mismatched administrators' beliefs, or administrators had no belief), administrators (a) were significantly more likely to record the statement as an identification (as opposed to a “not sure” response); (b) were significantly less likely to make statements that might lead the witness away from the suspect; and (c) evaluated the witness's viewing conditions significantly more positively.     

Anger in lineup identification and creation

As an approach-oriented emotion, anger appears to affect behavioral thresholds in a range of contexts. The current work consists of three experiments examining this in the context of eyewitness identification procedures. Experiments 1 and 2 examined the relationship between a witness' anger and identification reliability, and Experiment 3 examined the relationship between a lineup creator's anger and the quality of selected lineup fillers. Experiments 1 and 2 showed that anger during an identification procedure is associated with increased risk of false identifications and reduced confidence-accuracy calibration. Experiment 3 showed that anger is associated with lower quality of fillers selected by lineup creators. Together, these experiments suggest that anger may undermine the quality of eyewitness evidence, even when the witnesses themselves are not the ones experiencing anger and even when anger is not directed at the perpetrator or suspect.     

Showups versus lineups: An evaluation using ROC analysis

Showups (a one-person identification) were compared to both simultaneous and sequential lineups that varied in lineup fairness and the position of the suspect in the lineup. We reanalyzed data from a study by Gronlund, Carlson, Dailey, and Goodsell (2009), which included simultaneous and sequential lineups, and using the same stimuli and procedures, collected new data using showup identifications. Performance was compared using ROC analysis, which is superior to traditional measures such as correct and false identification rates, and probative value measures. ROC analysis showed that simultaneous lineups consistently produced more accurate identification evidence than showups, but sequential lineups were sometimes no more accurate than showups, and were never more accurate than simultaneous lineups. These results supported prior suppositions regarding the suggestiveness of showups, revealed a misconception about the superiority of sequential lineups, and demonstrated why eyewitness identification procedures need to be evaluated using ROC analyses.     

Children's supernatural thinking as a signalling behaviour in early childhood

In this study, we analysed the reaction times of 137 college students when making decisions on pairs of hypothetical children verbalizing different types of vignettes and/or exhibiting different physical appearance (photographs of faces). Vignettes depicted immature and mature versions of both supernatural (e.g., ‘The sun's not out today because it's mad’ vs. ‘The sun's not out today because the clouds are blocking it’) and natural (‘I can remember all 20 cards!’ vs. ‘I can remember 6 or 7 cards’) explanations to ordinary phenomena. Photographs of children's faces were morphed with a physical appearance of approximately 4–7 years old or approximately 8–10 years old. In earlier research, immature supernatural thinking produced positive‐affect reactions from adults and older adolescents (14–18 years old) towards young children, with cognitive cues being more important than physical‐appearance cues in influencing adults’ judgements. Reaction times to make decisions varied for the Supernatural and Natural vignettes and for the immature and mature vignettes/faces, reflecting the differential cognitive effort adults used for making decisions about aspects of children's physical appearance and verbal expressions. The findings were interpreted in terms of the critical role that young children's immature supernatural thinking has on adults’ perception, analogous to the evolved role of immature physical features on adults’ perception of infants.     

A comparison of video and static photo lineups with child and adolescent witnesses

In the UK video parades are the preferred method of identification employed in criminal cases. This policy implementation has been employed with little or no evidence concerning its validity. The reported research examines the effect of new video technology on children's identification evidence. The study compared 7–9 and 13–15‐year olds' ability to make identifications from either video or static photo lineups. Two hundred and fifteen participants witnessed a live event and then after a delay of 2–3 days viewed a target present (TP), or target absent (TA) video or photo lineup. For video and photo TP lineups, correct responses did not differ as a function of age. Video lineups produced lower rates of false identifications for the TA lineups, but only for adolescent witnesses. It is concluded that there is nothing contra‐indicated in the use of video identification procedures with children, and possibly certain benefits can accrue from its use. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Protecting innocent defendants,nailing the guilty: a modified sequential lineup

Can the traditional lineup procedure be modified in such a way as to still secure positive identifications of guilty persons while minimizing the risk of misidentifications? Witnesses interacted with a ‘culprit’ who they were later called upon to identify from a 20-person sequential video lineup. Both culprit-present and culprit-absent lineups were employed and witnesses could choose more than one suspect. In 61 culprit-present lineups 43% chose only the suspect, while in 93 culprit-absent lineups no-one did. In culprit-present lineups 25% chose him along with foils, while 5% did so in culprit-absent lineups. Larger lineup size, and the ability to make multiple choices, helped lower the probability of choosing only an innocent suspect. Using Baysian analysis, the probability that a chosen defendant was innocent, based on the lineup alone, equalled 0.03, compared to 0.258 in traditional lineups. © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.