When accurate and inaccurate eyewitnesses look the same: a limitation of the ‘pop‐out’ effect and the 10‐ to 12‐second rule

Research has found support for a ‘pop‐out effect’ that occurs when witnesses who accurately identify a criminal from a lineup are faster and uses more automatic processing than inaccurate witnesses who misidentify a foil. We present evidence that this finding may not occur with biased lineups. Witnesses to a mock theft were asked to make a lineup identification and three types of witnesses were compared: (1) accurate witnesses who identified a thief, (2) inaccurate witnesses who misidentified a foil who was more similar looking to the thief than the other lineup foils and (3) inaccurate witnesses who misidentified a foil who was not more similar in appearance to the thief than the other lineup foils. Accurate witnesses who identified the thief and inaccurate witnesses who misidentified a foil more similar to the thief than the other lineup foils were indistinguishable; both were faster, used more automatic recognition processes and were more confident than inaccurate witnesses who identified other foils. Copyright © 2006 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.     

The Effect of Mugshot Inspections on Eyewitness Identification Accuracy1

This study assessed the effect of commitment to an earlier mugshot identification on the ability to make a subsequent lineup identification. Shortly after viewing videotape of a staged assault some subjects rated a group of 18 photos for attractiveness, whereas other subjects attempted to identify the assailant publicly or privately in the same (target-absent) set of 18 “mugshot” photos. The remaining subjects had no intervening task. Two days later, all subjects attempted to identify the assailant from a six-person target-present photo lineup which contained their mugshot choice (if made) as well as the original assailant. Lineup identifications were significantly less accurate for subjects who had viewed the intervening mugshots (33% accuracy) than those who had only rated the intervening photos for attractiveness (64% accuracy) or had seen no intervening photos (69% accuracy). When viewing lineups, experimental subjects tended to remain committed to their earlier action of choosing or not choosing anyone from the mugshots. More witnesses who had publicly stated their mugshot choice reproduced their (incorrect) choice at the lineup (78%), than did those who made a private mugshot choice (45%), though this difference was not statistically reliable. Witnesses' confidence in their lineup decision was not significantly related to overall accuracy. Contrary to predictions from self-perception theory, confidence in one's decision decreased significantly as further identifications were attempted.     

Lineup administrator influences on eyewitness identification and eyewitness confidence

Lineup administrators were trained to respond to witnesses in such a way as to redirect them from making non-identifications or foil identification responses toward making identifications of the suspect. Compared to a no-influence control condition, suspect identification rates in the influence condition increased substantially and proportionally for guilty and innocent suspects. Administrators steered witnesses more specifically toward the suspect when the suspect was guilty than when the suspect was innocent. Post-identification confidence for correct identifications of the guilty suspect did not differ significantly across the influence and no-influence groups. However, post-identification confidence for false identifications of the innocent suspect was significantly lower for the influence group than for the no-influence group because witnesses who were influenced to make false identifications tended to be those who were less confident prior to the lineup, and also because those witnesses became less confident from pre- to post-identification.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Automaticity and eyewitness accuracy: a 10- to 12-second rule for distinguishing accurate from inaccurate positive identifications

Eyewitness researchers have shown that witnesses accurately choosing the culprit out of a lineup reach their decisions more quickly than those erroneously choosing an innocent individual. However, this research is silent regarding how quickly or slowly witnesses must be, in absolute terms, to indicate that they are accurate or inaccurate. Across 4 studies, the authors discovered that a time boundary of roughly 10 to 12 s best differentiated accurate from inaccurate positive identifications. Witnesses making their identification faster than 10 to 12 s were nearly 90% accurate; those taking longer were roughly 50% accurate. This finding is consistent with previous research showing that accurate witnesses are more likely than inaccurate witnesses to reach their decisions automatically, that is, quickly, without conscious thought or effort.     

The effects of explicit “Not Present” and “Don't Know” response options on identification decisions in computer-administered lineups

Eyewitness researchers recommend that “not present” and “don't know” response options should be presented with police lineups. Although it is important that witnesses—most of whom are unlikely to be familiar with the identification task—are fully cognizant of all response options available to them, an understanding of how explicit non-identification options affect performance is lacking. Across four experiments, including 3,633 participants and 8 different stimulus sets, we tested the effects of including non-identification options in computer-administered lineups. When explicit non-identification options were presented, target-present and -absent choosing decreased. This decrease in choosing was characterized by a shift from filler identifications to lineup rejections. ROC analyses revealed that there was no overall difference in discriminability between guilty and innocent suspects depending on response option condition. On balance, the findings suggest that, in addition to informing witnesses about acceptable responses, displaying non-identification response options does not undermine identification performance.     

Double Exposure: The Effects of Repeated Identification Lineups on Eyewitness Accuracy

Eyewitnesses may be asked to identify the same suspect from a lineup on successive occasions. This study explored the effects on eyewitness decisions of repeated same‐suspect lineups, within a 2 × 2 × 2 mixed‐model factorial design. Witnesses to a video crime attempted to identify the culprit from two same‐format lineups (simultaneous or sequential) separated by a 2‐week retention interval (Lineup1, Lineup2) in which a suspect (guilty or innocent) was common to the lineups. We predicted two components of a posited repeated lineup effect: that positive identification errors made at the first lineup would be carried forward rather than corrected at the second lineup and that the number of false identifications of the innocent suspect would rise from first to second lineup. Predictions were supported, with a stronger negative impact of repeated lineups for simultaneous than sequential lineups. Additionally, witnesses who made selections of the guilty suspect and of the innocent suspect at Lineup2 were equally confident and were significantly more confident than witnesses who declined to pick. The results underscore concerns about possible negative outcomes from repeated lineups. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The Effect of Backloading Instructions on Eyewitness Identification from Simultaneous and Sequential Lineups

The sequential lineup is multifaceted, including serial presentation of faces, multiple decisions, and often backloading (indicating to an eyewitness that a lineup contains more photos than there actually are). We evaluated the effect of backloading instructions on response bias and sensitivity with an eyewitness identification paradigm. Importantly, we included an ‘undisclosed’ condition that provided no information to participants about the number of lineup members to expect. Experiment 1 (N = 780) tested sequential lineups; Experiment 2 (N = 532) tested simultaneous lineups. As predicted, signal detection analysis showed that backloading induced participants to be more conservative in choosing from both lineup types, but did not affect d′. We conclude that the criminal justice system should be mindful of this shift in response bias, as it has implications for both guilty and innocent suspect identifications. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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.     

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.     

Witnesses in action: the effect of physical exertion on recall and recognition

Understanding memory performance under different operational conditions is critical in many occupational settings. To examine the effect of physical exertion on memory for a witnessed event, we placed two groups of law-enforcement officers in a live, occupationally relevant scenario. One group had previously completed a high-intensity physical-assault exercise, and the other had not. Participants who completed the assault exercise showed impaired recall and recognition performance compared with the control group. Specifically, they provided significantly less accurate information concerning critical and incidental target individuals encountered during the scenario, recalled less briefing information, and provided fewer briefing updates than control participants did. Exertion was also associated with reduced accuracy in identifying the critical target from a lineup. These results support arousal-based competition accounts proposing differential allocation of resources under physiological arousal. These novel findings relating to eyewitness memory performance have important implications for victims, ordinary citizens who become witnesses, and witnesses in policing, military, and related operational contexts.     

The unconscious transference effect: Are innocent bystanders ever misidentified?

Unconscious transference refers to an eyewitness's misidentification of an innocent bystander for a criminal perpetrator because of the witness's exposure to the bystander in another context. In a series of five field studies involving 330 retail store clerks and 340 students, five retention intervals from 2 hours to 2 weeks, seven bystander-perpetrator intervals from 2 minutes to 2 weeks, three line-up types, two levels of line-up similarity, four different bystanders and four different targets, with one exception no evidence was obtained that could be interpreted to demonstrate the phenomenon of unconscious transference. That is, the resultsr repeatedly failed to reveal more misidentifications of an innocent bystander by witnesses who had been previously exposed to the bystander than by control evewitnesses who had not. To the contrary, the prior observation of the bystander often served to reduce the frequency of misidentification. In the final experiment the kind of misidentification error referred to as unconscious transference did occur, but only within a particular combination of bystander-perpetrator similarity and line-up construction: a combination that, in conjunction with the kind of event used, seems unlikely in real-world settings. Nevertheless, the inclusion of a familiar face in the line-ups often altered witnesses' choices in such a way that choosing someone was more likely when the lineup included a familiar face than when it did not. Finally, in contrast to the current explanations of unconscious transference, it is argued that it may not be a sense of familiarity with the bystander that is the basis of misidentifications; rather, it may also include incorrect inferences about the likelihood that the bystander might be the perpetrator.     

The Confidence-Accuracy Relationship: The Effects of Confidence Assessment and Choosing1

Male and female college undergraduates were exposed to a staged theft. For half of the subjects, confidence judgments were assessed both before and after viewing a photo lineup. For the other half, confidence judgments were assessed only after viewing the lineup. Subjects in both conditions viewed a target-present or target-absent lineup under negativey biased, unbiased, or positively biased instructions. Across all subjects, confidence and accuracy were significantly correlated (r= .30). There was a significantly stronger relationship between confidence and accuracy among choosers (r= 50) than among nonchoosers (r= .14). Choosing and confidence did not correlate significantly with each other. Identification accuracy was significantly poorer when witnesses had been asked before viewing the lineup to state their confidence that they would make an accurate identification than when confidence was measured only after an identification had been attempted. However, the before-after manipulation did not affect the magnitude of the confidence-accuracy relationship. The present results offer some support for the general proposition that choosing and the timing of confidence assessments should be viewed as moderating variables in the interpretation of the confidence-accuracy relationship. These data offer little support for predictions based upon self-perception theory and are in direct disagreement with the widely held assertion that witnesses are confident in whatever choice they make, regardless of its correctness.     

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.     

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.