Eyewitness identification accuracy and response latency: the unruly 10-12-second rule

Data are reported from 3,213 research eyewitnesses confirming that accurate eyewitness identifications from lineups are made faster than are inaccurate identifications. However, consistent with predictions from the recognition and search literatures, the authors did not find support for the "10-12-s rule" in which lineup identifications faster than 10-12 s maximally discriminate between accurate and inaccurate identifications (D. Dunning & S. Perretta, 2002). Instead, the time frame that proved most discriminating was highly variable across experiments, ranging from 5 s to 29 s, and the maximally discriminating time was often unimpressive in its ability to sort accurate from inaccurate identifications. The authors suggest several factors that are likely to moderate the 10-12-s rule.     

Can eyewitnesses correct for external influences on their lineup identifications? The actual/counterfactual assessment paradigm

Real-world eyewitnesses are often asked whether their lineup responses were affected by various external influences, but it is unknown whether they can accurately answer these types of questions. The witness-report-of-influence mental-correction model is proposed to explain witnesses' reports of influence. Two experiments used a new paradigm (the actual/counterfactual paradigm) to examine eyewitnesses' abilities to report accurately on the influence of lineup manipulations. Eyewitnesses were administered either confirming feedback or no feedback (Experiment 1, n = 103), or a cautionary instruction or no cautionary instruction (Experiment 2, n = 114). Eyewitnesses then gave actual responses (retrospective confidence, view, and attention measures in Experiment 1; identification decision in Experiment 2) as well as counterfactual responses stating how they would have responded in the alternative condition. Results across both studies showed an asymmetric estimation of influence pattern: Eyewitnesses who received an influencing manipulation estimated significantly less of a change in their responses than eyewitnesses who did not receive an influencing manipulation. A 48-hr delay between actual and counterfactual responses did not moderate any effects. Results are explained by witnesses' implicit theories of influence.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Asking an eyewitness to predict their later lineup performance could harm the confidence–accuracy relationship

Few studies have investigated eyewitnesses' ability to predict their later lineup performance, known as predecision confidence. We applied calibration analysis in two experiments comparing predecision confidence (immediately after encoding but prior to a lineup) to postdecision confidence (immediately after a lineup) to determine which produces a superior relationship with lineup decision accuracy. Experiment 1 (N = 177) featured a multiple-block lineup recognition paradigm featuring several targets and lineups; Experiment 2 featured an eyewitness identification paradigm with a mock-crime video and a single lineup for each participant (N = 855). Across both experiments, postdecision confidence discriminated well between correct and incorrect lineup decisions, but predecision confidence was a poor predictor of accuracy. Moreover, simply asking for predecision confidence weakened the postdecision confidence–accuracy relationship. This implies that police should exercise caution when interviewing eyewitnesses, as they should not be asked to predict their ability to make an accurate lineup decision.     

The Effects of Discussion on Eyewitness Memory1

This study investigated the effects of witness discussion on the accuracy of recall and misidentifications in eyewitness memory. Dyadic groups who discussed the crime and dyads who made joint memorial decisions about the incident were more accurate in recall than were dyads who discussed noncriminal matters, and a no-discussion group. Collaborative dyads giving joint decisions also were significantly more accurate than were the other groups in rejection of the culprit-absent lineup. The sequential lineup method proved superior to the simultaneous method, regardless of whether or not witnesses discussed the crime prior to identification. It was concluded that discussion and joint decision making by 2 eyewitnesses can improve both eyewitness recall and minimize false identifications in some circumstances.     

Building face composites can harm lineup identification performance

Face composite programs permit eyewitnesses to build likenesses of target faces by selecting facial features and combining them into an intact face. Research has shown that these composites are generally poor likenesses of the target face. Two experiments tested the proposition that this composite-building process could harm the builder's memory for the face. In Experiment 1 (n = 150), the authors used 50 different faces and found that the building of a composite reduced the chances that the person could later identify the original face from a lineup when compared with no composite control conditions or with yoked composite-exposure control conditions. In Experiment 2 (n = 200), the authors found that this effect generalized to a simulated-crime video, but mistaken identifications from target-absent lineups were not inflated by composite building.     

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.     

An eyewitness paradox

Two methods of analysing data from an identification parade give rise to seemingly contradictory outcomes, both of which reach statistical significance. The traditional method is based on the first choices of eyewitnesses, whereas the paired-comparison method takes account of each eyewitness's full rank ordering of the lineup participants. The person that most eyewitnesses pick out as the perpetrator of an offence (according to the first-choice method) may in fact be the person that those same eyewitnesses as a group regard as least likely to have committed the act (according to the paired-comparison method). Implications of the paradox for the analysis of lineup data are considered.     

Witnesses’ memories for lineup fillers postdicts their identification accuracy

Witnesses who have quick, automatic recognition experiences when viewing a lineup tend to make more accurate decisions than witnesses who engage in slower, more deliberative processes. A novel postdictor of identification accuracy is predicted from these findings: memories for lineup fillers should be stronger among inaccurate, rather than accurate, witnesses. Undergraduate students (N = 320) viewed a mock crime, made a lineup identification decision, and were given a surprise test for their memory for the lineup fillers. Consistent with predictions, better memories for lineup fillers postdicted mistaken identifications and the suspect's innocence. Information gain analyses showed that under some conditions, memory for lineup fillers provided as much information about the suspect's guilt as a lineup identification. Findings are consistent with the idea that postdictors of eyewitness accuracy are valuable to the extent that they measure the automaticity or deliberativeness of the witness's experience when viewing the lineup.     

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.