An exploration of visual behaviour in eyewitness identification tests

The contribution of internal (eyes, nose and mouth) and external (hair‐line, cheek and jaw‐line) features across eyewitness identification tests was examined using eye tracking. In Experiment 1 , participants studied faces and were tested with lineups, either simultaneous (test faces presented in an array) or sequential (test faces presented one at a time). In Experiment 2, the recognition of previously studied faces was tested in a showup (a suspect face alone was presented). Results indicated that foils were analysed for a shorter period of time in the simultaneous compared to the sequential condition, whereas a positively identified face was analysed for a comparable period of time across lineup procedures. In simultaneous lineups and showups, a greater proportion of time was spent analysing internal features of the test faces compared to sequential lineups. Different decision processes across eyewitness identification tests are inferred based on the results. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Configural and component processing in simultaneous and sequential lineup procedures

Configural processing supports accurate face recognition, yet it has never been examined within the context of criminal identification lineups. We tested, using the inversion paradigm, the role of configural processing in lineups. Recent research has found that face discrimination accuracy in lineups is better in a simultaneous compared to a sequential lineup procedure. Therefore, we compared configural processing in simultaneous and sequential lineups to examine whether there are differences. We had participants view a crime video, and then they attempted to identify the perpetrator from a simultaneous or sequential lineup. The test faces were presented either upright or inverted, as previous research has shown that inverting test faces disrupts configural processing. The size of the inversion effect for faces was the same across lineup procedures, indicating that configural processing underlies face recognition in both procedures. Discrimination accuracy was comparable across lineup procedures in both the upright and inversion condition. Theoretical implications of the results are discussed.     

Who's the one in trouble? experimental evidence for a ‘psychic state’ bias in lineups

In two experiments, a bias in lineups was examined, which has mostly been ignored in previous research. The psychic state of the suspects differs from the state of the fillers, in that they face a situation that can lead to personal loss (if they are identified) or relief (if they are not identified). This state might result in detectable behavioural cues, thus making the lineup unfair. Lineups were conducted with randomly chosen mock suspects who were promised money if they were not identified. Lineup samples were recorded on videotape once before the selection of the mock suspect (serving as a control) and once afterwards. The probability of identification of the mock suspect was significantly increased in the latter compared to the former condition. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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.     

Processing emotion information from both the face and body: An eye-movement study

This study examined the perception of emotional expressions, focusing on the face and the body. Photographs of four actors expressing happiness, sadness, anger, and fear were presented in congruent (e.g., happy face with happy body) and incongruent (e.g., happy face with fearful body) combinations. Participants selected an emotional label using a four-option categorisation task. Reaction times and accuracy for the categorisation judgement, and eye movements were the dependent variables. Two regions of interest were examined: face and body. Results showed better accuracy and faster reaction times for congruent images compared to incongruent images. Eye movements showed an interaction in which there were more fixations and longer dwell times to the face and fewer fixations and shorter dwell times to the body with incongruent images. Thus, conflicting information produced a marked effect on information processing in which participants focused to a greater extent on the face compared to the body.     

Recognising faces seen alone or with others: why are two heads worse than one?

The ability to identify an unfamiliar target face from an identity lineup declines when the target is accompanied by a second face during visual encoding. This two-face disadvantage is still little studied and its basis remains poorly understood. We investigated several possible explanations for this phenomenon. Experiments 1 and 2 varied the number of potential targets (1 or 2) and the number of faces in a lineup (5 or 10) to explore if this effect arises from the number of identity comparisons that need to be made to detect a target in a lineup. We also explored if this effect arises from an uncertainty concerning which is the to-be-identified target in two-face displays, by cueing the relevant face during encoding. In experiment 3 we then examined whether the two-face disadvantage reflects the depth of face encoding or a memory effect. The results show that this effect arises from the additional comparisons that are necessary to compare two potential targets to an identity lineup when memory demands are minimised (experiment 1), but it reflects a difficulty in remembering several faces when targets and lineups cannot be viewed simultaneously (experiments 2 and 3). However, in both cases the two-face disadvantage could not be eliminated fully by cueing the target. This hints at a further possible locus for this effect, which might reflect perceptual interference during the initial encoding of the target. The implications of these findings are discussed.     

Mirror, mirror on the wall: enhancement in self-recognition

People's inferences about their own traits and abilities are often enhancing. A series of experiments suggests that this enhancement extends to more automatic and perceptual judgments as well, such that people recognize their own faces as being more physically attractive than they actually are. In each experiment, participants' faces were made more or less attractive using a morphing procedure. Participants were more likely to recognize an attractively enhanced version of their own face out of a lineup as their own, and they identified an attractively enhanced version of their face more quickly in a lineup of distractor faces. This enhancement bias occurred for both one's own face and a friend's face but not for a relative stranger's face. Such enhancement was correlated with implicit measures of self-worth but not with explicit measures, consistent with this variety of enhancement being a relatively automatic rather than deliberative process.     

A cross-race effect in metamemory: Predictions of face recognition are more accurate for members of our own race

The Cross-Race Effect (CRE) is the well-replicated finding that people are better at recognizing faces from their own race, relative to other races. The CRE reveals systematic limitations on eyewitness identification accuracy, suggesting that some caution is warranted in evaluating cross-race identification. The CRE is problematic because jurors value eyewitness identification highly in verdict decisions. We explore how accurate people are in predicting their ability to recognize own-race and other-race faces. Caucasian and Asian participants viewed photographs of Caucasian and Asian faces, and made immediate judgments of learning during study. An old/new recognition test replicated the CRE: both groups displayed superior discriminability of own-race faces. Importantly, relative metamnemonic accuracy was also greater for own-race faces, indicating that the accuracy of predictions about face recognition is influenced by race. This result indicates another source of concern when eliciting or evaluating eyewitness identification: people are less accurate in judging whether they will or will not recognize a face when that face is of a different race than they are. This new result suggests that a witness's claim of being likely to recognize a suspect from a lineup should be interpreted with caution when the suspect is of a different race than the witness.     

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.     

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.     

面孔部件在群体注意方向判断中的作用

探讨面孔部件(眼睛和鼻子)在个体和群体注意方向判断中的作用。实验1使用不同数量面孔的图片,要求报告群体或个体的注意方向。结果发现,多面孔条件下对群体注意方向估计的准确性高于单面孔条件。实验2采用眼动技术,探讨眼睛和鼻子在判断其注意方向时注视的空间与时间分布特征。结果发现,基于单张面孔判断时,对鼻子的总注视时间长于眼睛;基于多张面孔判断时,对眼睛和鼻子的总注视时间没有差异。整个研究表明,知觉个体注意主要依赖鼻子,知觉群体注意依赖眼睛和鼻子。     

Suggestiveness in photospread line-ups: Similarity induces distinctiveness

The present research examined whether line-ups based on target (‘suspect’) face similarity are biased or suggestive. Four experiments are described in which subjects constructed photographic line-ups by selecting foils similar in appearance to a target. Later, another group of subjects who had not seen the faces before (mock witnesses) were asked to pick out the targets from the line-ups. All four experiments showed that mock witnesses selected the target significantly more often than expected by chance, thereby demonstrating suggestiveness. Three alternative line-up construction methods were also evaluated. In these methods, foil selection was based not only on target similarity but also on similarity with one or more of the other line-up faces. Results showed that alternative line-up targets were not selected significantly more often than chance, suggesting that bias was reduced. An overall analysis showed that the alternative line-ups were significantly less suggestive than target-based line-ups. The results indicate that foil selection procedures that incorporate foil-to-foil similarity produce fairer line-ups than those exclusively based on target similarity.     

Massed versus distributed exposure and imaging of faces: Changing the test view

This research examined the effects of massed versus distributed exposure and imaging of faces, and the effects of changing the study-to-test view on subsequent recognition performance. The massed procedure consisted of individual faces exposed once for 6 s, followed by a 30 s off period. The distributed procedure consisted of faces exposed three times for 2 s, followed by a 10 s off period after each exposure. During the off periods, groups of participants either imaged the previous face, imaged another face, or performed an irrelevant letter-search task. Results showed that distributed exposure and post-exposure imaging of target faces facilitated recognition, but these effects primarily occurred when the same facial view was given at both study and test. Recognition diminished when the target was presented in a different view at test, but when combined with distributed presentation and target imaging, performance was enhanced. Implications for suspect identification and recognition of other kinds of complex visual stimuli are discussed.     

自闭症谱系障碍儿童对面孔加工的同龄偏向效应

采用视觉追踪技术,探讨自闭症谱系障碍(autism spectrum disorders, ASD)儿童面孔加工的同龄偏向效应。实验1选取19名ASD儿童和23名生理年龄匹配的普通儿童(typically developing, TD)为被试,通过自由观看同龄和异龄中性面孔,探讨ASD儿童是否存在面孔加工的同龄偏向效应;实验2选取22名ASD儿童和生理年龄匹配的25名TD儿童,通过自由观看快乐、愤怒和恐惧面孔,探讨情绪对ASD儿童面孔加工同龄偏向的影响。结果发现,(1)ASD儿童对同龄中性面孔的注视时间显著大于异龄中性面孔;(2)ASD儿童在愤怒和恐惧情绪下对同龄面孔的注视时间显著大于异龄面孔,而在快乐情绪下同龄和异龄的注视时间则无显著差异。这表明ASD儿童对面孔的注视加工存在同龄偏向效应,且受情绪的影响。     

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.     

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.     

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.