Attempts to Improve Children's Identifications From Sequential-Presentation Lineups

The effectiveness of practice and stringent lineup instructions in improving children's identifications from sequential-presentation lineups was investigated. Elementary school children ( N = 144) viewed a slide sequence of a crime followed by practice or control procedures. In the practice conditions, children either practiced themselves (self) or watched a videotape of a child practicing (modeled). Practice consisted of 2 target-absent lineups (unmixed) or a target-absent lineup and a target-present lineup (mixed) of female photos unrelated to the crime. The control conditions did not engage in identification practice. All witnesses were given stringent instructions for identifying the criminal from target-present or target-absent sequential-presentation lineups. Multiple responding was dramatically reduced. Practice affected gender differentially. Female children increased in correct identifications, whereas male children increased in false rejections. None of the practice procedures reduced foil identifications from target-absent lineups.     

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.     

Children's metacognitive judgments in an eyewitness identification task

Two experiments examined children's metacognitive monitoring of recognition judgments within an eyewitness identification paradigm. A confidence-accuracy (CA) calibration approach was used to examine patterns of calibration, over-/underconfidence, and resolution. In Experiment 1, children (n=619, mean age=11 years 10 months) and adults (n=600) viewed a simulated crime and attempted two separate identifications from 8-person target-present or target-absent lineups given lineup instructions that manipulated witnesses choosing patterns by varying the degree of social pressure. For choosers, but not nonchoosers, meaningful CA relations were observed for adults but not for children. Experiment 2 tested a guided hypothesis disconfirmation manipulation designed to improve the realism of children's metacognitive judgments. Children (N=796, mean age=11 years 11 months) in experimental and control conditions viewed a crime and attempted two separate identifications. The manipulation had minimal impact on the CA relation for choosers and nonchoosers. In contrast to adults, children's identification confidence provides no useful guide for investigators about the likely guilt or innocence of a suspect. These experiments revealed limitations in children's metacognitive monitoring processes that have not been apparent in previous research on recall and recognition with younger children.     

Children's identification of faces from lineups: the effects of lineup presentation and instructions on accuracy

The authors investigated whether the type of lineup and instructions given to children 6-7 or 9-10 years of age affected their identification accuracy. Children witnessed a man stealing property and were later asked to identify him in either photo or video lineups. Some lineups contained the target and some did not. Two lineup procedures were used (standard or elimination), and 2 types of instruction were used (standard or cautioning about false identification). Standard lineups with cautioning instructions decreased target-absent errors with no associated reduction in correct identifications, but elimination lineups did not. Lineup media had an interaction effect whereby correct identifications were reduced in video but not photo elimination lineups. The results are discussed in a forensic context.     

Effects of postidentification feedback on eyewitness identification and nonidentification confidence

Two experiments investigated new dimensions of the effect of confirming feedback on eyewitness identification confidence using target-absent and target-present lineups and (previously unused) unbiased witness instructions (i.e., "offender not present" option highlighted). In Experiment 1, participants viewed a crime video and were later asked to try to identify the thief from an 8-person target-absent photo array. Feedback inflated witness confidence for both mistaken identifications and correct lineup rejections. With target-present lineups in Experiment 2, feedback inflated confidence for correct and mistaken identifications and lineup rejections. Although feedback had no influence on the confidence-accuracy correlation, it produced clear overconfidence. Confidence inflation varied with the confidence measure reference point (i.e., retrospective vs. current confidence) and identification response latency.     

Aging and lineup performance at long retention intervals: effects of metamemory and context reinstatement

Young (18-30 years) and older (62-79 years) adults (N = 96) engaged in a 20-min live interaction with the future target in a lineup task. One month later, participants were interviewed about the events in the prior encounter (with or without context reinstatement), and then they saw a target-present (TP) or target-absent (TA) lineup. The lineup was followed by the Benton Face Recognition Test (A. Benton, A. Sivan, K. Hamsher, N. Varney, & O. Spreen, 1994), which correlated positively with accuracy in TP, especially for young adults. False identification in TA was associated with (a) higher scores on a memory self-efficacy scale and (b) higher recall of information about the initial event, although only for seniors. Results suggested that age-related increases in false identification generalize to ecologically valid conditions and that seniors' performance on lineups is negatively related to verbal recall as well as to self-reports of satisfactory experiences with memory in life.     

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.     

Identification accuracy of a single culprit in a multiple-perpetrator mock crime

IntroductionEyewitness identification research has mainly examined the identification accuracy of a single perpetrator but many actual crimes involve not one but several perpetrators.ObjectiveThe aim of the study was to examine the identification accuracy if only one lineup for one of the two perpetrators is presented in a multiple perpetrator crime.MethodThe sample consisted of 180 participants who saw a theft video followed by distraction tasks. One group of participants saw lineups for both of the perpetrators (one target present and one target-absent) whereas the other saw only a single lineup (either target-present or target-absent) for one of the two perpetrators.ResultsParticipants who saw a single lineup did not make more inaccurate identification decisions then participants who saw two lineups. Decision accuracy in the first lineup was not associated with the decision accuracy in the second lineup.ConclusionThe results are discussed in terms of the number of perpetrators and line-up presentation types.     

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.     

Are multiple-trial experiments appropriate for eyewitness identification studies? Accuracy,choosing, and confidence across trials

Eyewitness identification experiments typically involve a single trial: A participant views an event and subsequently makes a lineup decision. As compared to this single-trial paradigm, multiple-trial designs are more efficient, but significantly reduce ecological validity and may affect the strategies that participants use to make lineup decisions. We examined the effects of a number of forensically relevant variables (i.e., memory strength, type of disguise, degree of disguise, and lineup type) on eyewitness accuracy, choosing, and confidence across 12 target-present and 12 target-absent lineup trials (N?=?349; 8,376 lineup decisions). The rates of correct rejections and choosing (across both target-present and target-absent lineups) did not vary across the 24 trials, as reflected by main effects or interactions with trial number. Trial number had a significant but trivial quadratic effect on correct identifications (OR?=?0.99) and interacted significantly, but again trivially, with disguise type (OR?=?1.00). Trial number did not significantly influence participants’ confidence in correct identifications, confidence in correct rejections, or confidence in target-absent selections. Thus, multiple-trial designs appear to have minimal effects on eyewitness accuracy, choosing, and confidence. Researchers should thus consider using multiple-trial designs for conducting eyewitness identification experiments.     

Multiple confidence estimates as indices of eyewitness memory

Eyewitness identification decisions are vulnerable to various influences on witnesses' decision criteria that contribute to false identifications of innocent suspects and failures to choose perpetrators. An alternative procedure using confidence estimates to assess the degree of match between novel and previously viewed faces was investigated. Classification algorithms were applied to participants' confidence data to determine when a confidence value or pattern of confidence values indicated a positive response. Experiment 1 compared confidence group classification accuracy with a binary decision control group's accuracy on a standard old-new face recognition task and found superior accuracy for the confidence group for target-absent trials but not for target-present trials. Experiment 2 used a face mini-lineup task and found reduced target-present accuracy offset by large gains in target-absent accuracy. Using a standard lineup paradigm, Experiments 3 and 4 also found improved classification accuracy for target-absent lineups and, with a more sophisticated algorithm, for target-present lineups. This demonstrates the accessibility of evidence for recognition memory decisions and points to a more sensitive index of memory quality than is afforded by binary decisions.     

Replicating distinctive facial features in lineups: identification performance in young versus older adults

Criminal suspects with distinctive facial features, such as tattoos or bruising, may stand out in a police lineup. To prevent suspects from being unfairly identified on the basis of their distinctive feature, the police often manipulate lineup images to ensure that all of the members appear similar. Recent research shows that replicating a distinctive feature across lineup members enhances eyewitness identification performance, relative to removing that feature on the target. In line with this finding, the present study demonstrated that with young adults (n = 60; mean age = 20), replication resulted in more target identifications than did removal in target-present lineups and that replication did not impair performance, relative to removal, in target-absent lineups. Older adults (n = 90; mean age = 74) performed significantly worse than young adults, identifying fewer targets and more foils; moreover, older adults showed a minimal benefit from replication over removal. This pattern is consistent with the associative deficit hypothesis of aging, such that older adults form weaker links between faces and their distinctive features. Although replication did not produce much benefit over removal for older adults, it was not detrimental to their performance. Therefore, the results suggest that replication may not be as beneficial to older adults as it is to young adults and demonstrate a new practical implication of age-related associative deficits in memory.     

Biased lineup instructions and face identification from video images

Previous eyewitness memory research has shown that biased lineup instructions reduce identification accuracy, primarily by increasing false-positive identifications in target-absent lineups. Because some attempts at identification do not rely on a witness's memory of the perpetrator but instead involve matching photos to images on surveillance video, the authors investigated the effects of biased instructions on identification accuracy in a matching task. In Experiment 1, biased instructions did not affect the overall accuracy of participants who used video images as an identification aid, but nearly all correct decisions occurred with target-present photo spreads. Both biased and unbiased instructions resulted in high false-positive rates. In Experiment 2, which focused on video-photo matching accuracy with target-absent photo spreads, unbiased instructions led to more correct responses (i.e., fewer false positives). These findings suggest that investigators should not relax precautions against biased instructions when people attempt to match photos to an unfamiliar person recorded on video.     

The confidence-accuracy relationship in eyewitness identification: effects of lineup instructions, foil similarity, and target-absent base rates

Discriminating accurate from mistaken eyewitness identifications is a major issue facing criminal justice systems. This study examined whether eyewitness confidence assists such decisions under a variety of conditions using a confidence-accuracy (CA) calibration approach. Participants (N = 1,200) viewed a simulated crime and attempted 2 separate identifications from 8-person target-present or target-absent lineups. Confidence and accuracy were calibrated for choosers (but not nonchoosers) for both targets under all conditions. Lower overconfidence was associated with higher diagnosticity, lower target-absent base rates, and shorter identification latencies. Although researchers agree that courtroom expressions of confidence are uninformative, our findings indicate that confidence assessments obtained immediately after a positive identification can provide a useful guide for investigators about the likely accuracy of an identification.     

The “other-accent” effect in voice recognition

The current paper examines an “other-accent” effect when recognising voices. English and Scottish listeners were tested with English and Scottish voices using a sequential lineup method. The results suggested greater accuracy for own-accent voices than for other-accent voices under both target-present and target-absent conditions. Moreover, self-rated confidence in response to target-absent lineups suggested greater confidence for own-accent voices than other-accent voices. As predicted, the other-accent effect noted here emerged more strongly for English listeners than for Scottish listeners, and these results are discussed within an expertise framework alongside both other-race effects in face recognition, and other-accent effects in word recognition. Given these results, caution is advised in the treatment of earwitness evidence when recognising a voice of another accent.     

Voice Identification Over the Telephone1

Following a telephone survey investigating attitudes toward police and frequency of personal victimization. 177 citizens between the ages of 18 and 88 years participated without forewarning in a field study on telephone voice identification. Identification accuracy (hits) improved with longer conversation durations (an average duration of 7.8 min compared to conversation durations of 3.2 min and 4.3 min. on average), but the false alarm rate also reliably increased with longer durations in a target-present lineup. False alarms were consistently high (overall M= .48) in the target-absent lineup. No significant differences were found in hit scores or false alarm scores over a two to three day retention interval. No significant correlation was found between confidence scores and accuracy of performance on the target-present lineup (r= .10). but a significant correlation (r= 36) was found on the target-absent lineup.     

Increasing correct identifications by children

Four new lineup procedures were examined with the goal of increasingchildren's identification accuracy. Participants (329 children aged 10 and11 years, 426 children aged 12 to 14 years, and 265 adults) were presentedwith either a target-present or target-absent lineup. Proceduralmodifications included providing a salient "I don't know" response option,extending standard instructions, and modeling correct responses eitherusing an identification demonstration video or a handout. These conditionswere compared to a standard (control) lineup procedure. Extendingstandard instructions increased correct identifications by the youngerchildren. Presenting a salient "I don't know" response increased overallchoosing for both target-present and target-absent lineups. Experimentalprocedures did not influence correct rejection rates. These data demonstratea variety of techniques that may be useful for improving the identificationaccuracy of child witnesses. Future directions are discussed.     

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.     

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.