Much better than the sequential lineup: a 120-person lineup

Abstract

Large lineups may be more reliable than small ones. However, research has found greatly reduced identifications in 40-person lineups of photos shown sequentially one at a time. The task may be more difficult than necessary. Grouping photos may provide an easier one. Three studies had compared seven-page lineups (42, 84, or 168 members) with lineups of about 20. In the first two studies identification and mistaken choice rates were identical in the large and smaller lineup. Identifications in the 168-person lineup were much less. This study tested a 10-page 120-person lineup, and added a 12-person lineup. No difference was found between the 120- and 24-person lineups, and an interaction in 12-person lineups was found between graduate lab student witnesses and others. False identifications, and the probability that the suspect is innocent when ‘identified’, is much less in 120-person lineups than the 24- or 12-person lineups, or the sequential lineup.     

Investigating Investigators: Examining the Impact of Eyewitness Identification Evidence on Student-Investigators

This research examined the impact of eyewitness identification decisions on student-investigators. Undergraduates played the role of police investigators and interviewed student-witnesses who had been shown either a good or poor view of the perpetrator in a videotaped crime. Based on information obtained from the witness, student-investigators then chose a suspect from a database containing information about potential suspects and rated the probability that their suspect was the culprit. Investigators then administered a photo lineup to witnesses, and re-rated the probability that their suspect was guilty. Student-investigators were highly influenced by eyewitness identification decisions, typically overestimating the information gained from the identification decision (except under conditions that led witnesses to be very accurate), and were generally unable to differentiate between accurate and inaccurate witnesses.

On the Diagnosticity of Multiple-Witness Identifications

It is not uncommon for there to be multiple eyewitnesses to a crime, each of whom is later shown a lineup. How is the probative value, or diagnosticity, of such multiple-witness identifications to be evaluated? Previous treatments have focused on the diagnosticity of a single eyewitness’s response to a lineup (Wells and Lindsay, Psychol. Bull. 3 (1980) 776); however, the results of eyewitness identification experiments indicate that the responses of multiple independent witnesses may often be inconsistent. The present paper calculates response diagnosticity for multiple witnesses and shows how diagnostic probabilities change across various combinations of consistent and inconsistent witness responses. Multiple-witness diagnosticity is examined across variation in the conditions of observation, lineup composition, and lineup presentation. In general, the diagnostic probabilities of guilt were shown to increase with the addition of suspect identifications and decrease with the addition of nonidentifications. Foil identification results were more complicated-diagnostic of innocence in many cases, but nondiagnostic or diagnostic of innocence in biased lineups. These analyses illustrate the importance of securing clear records of all witness responses, rather than myopically focusing on the witness who identified the suspect while ignoring those witnesses who did not.     

Cueing Confidence in Eyewitness Identifications: Influence of Biased Lineup Instructions and Pre-Identification Memory Feedback Under Varying Lineup Conditions

Students watched a theft video, attempted an identification from a thief-present or thief-absent lineup under unbiased or biased instructions, and rated identification confidence. In Experiment 1, the participants received (bogus) positive, negative, or no pre-identification feedback about a recall test. Biased instructions and positive feedback increased confidence and ratings of eyewitnessing conditions. In Experiment 2, biased instructions increased confidence unless the thief was absent and lineup members were similar, where they decreased confidence. According to the cue-belief model, biased instructions send a positive accuracy cue regarding the most familiar-looking lineup member. If none stands out, instructions conflict with an inclination to reject the lineup. Feedback may create a belief about memory quality that is a cue regarding likely recognition accuracy.

The Effect of Exposure to Multiple Lineups on Face Identification Accuracy

This study examines the conditions under which an intervening lineup affects identification accuracy on a subsequent lineup. One hundred and sixty adults observed a photograph of one target individual for 60 s. One week later, they viewed an intervening target-absent lineup and were asked to identify the target individual. Two days later, participants were shown one of three 6-person lineups that included a different photograph of the target face (present or absent), a foil face from the intervening lineup present or absent), plus additional foil faces. The hit rate was higher when the foil face from the intervening lineup was absent from the test lineup and the false alarm rate was greater when the target face was absent from the test lineup. The results suggest that simply being exposed to an innocent suspect in an intervening lineup, whether that innocent suspect is identified by the witness or not, increases the probability of misidentifying the innocent suspect and decreases the probability of correctly identifying the true perpetrator in a subsequent test lineup. The implications of these findings both for police lineup procedures and for the interpretation of lineup results in the courtroom are discussed.     

Non-biased lineup instructions do matter – a problem for older witnesses

Abstract

From the limited literature on older witnesses’ identification performance it is known that they are less accurate on lineups compared to younger witnesses. What is less certain is why they show this age deficit and what can be done to aid their performance. Witnesses forgot being given non-biased lineup instructions informing witnesses that the perpetrator may or may not be present. More older witnesses than younger witnesses forgot and witnesses who failed to report remembering these instructions were significantly less accurate on the lineups. In addition, the current study investigated the use of sequential lineup presentation and stringent decision criteria to aid the performance of older witnesses. Sequential presentation was beneficial to both younger and older adults when the lineup was target absent (TA) but was detrimental when the lineup was target present (TP). Stringent decision criteria had no significant beneficial effect. Future directions for aiding older witnesses’ performance are discussed.     

An analysis of multiple choices in MSL lineups,and a comparison with simultaneous and sequential ones

Abstract

Simultaneous lineups allow witnesses to compare lineup members, causing excessive mistaken identifications. Levi (1998b) has tested MSL lineups: they are sequential, larger, and allow multiple choices. [The MSL lineup was originally termed a Modified Sequential Lineup (Levi, 1998b). However, there are other modified sequential lineups.]

Each factor decreases mistaken identifications. However, witnesses make fewer single choices of culprits. Sometimes witnesses choose suspects more confidently than any foil. This analysis examines such multiple choices in four experiments. They account for half of multiple choices with culprits. Few foils are chosen, and such responses are rare in culprit-absent lineups, no more than single choices. They are therefore identifications too.

An experiment comparing simultaneous, sequential, and MSL lineups is also reported. The culprit was identified more in simultaneous lineups than in sequential ones. The simultaneous lineup had more mistaken choices than sequential and MSL lineups, whose results were identical. The simultaneous and sequential lineups were equally diagnostic, while the MSL lineup, four times larger, was more than four times more reliable.     

Own-race bias in lineup construction

The lineup identification of a suspect is often a critical stage in a criminal investigation. One factor which may affect the fairness of a lineup is bias on the part of the person constructing the lineup. the own-race bias, the tendency of individuals to perceive more similarity in the appearance of other-race members than in their own, may affect lineup development. Black subjects and white subjects were asked to construct lineups using both black and white suspects. On three of four measures, their behavior was very similar while making white lineups but different on black lineups. Relative to their performance on white lineups, white subjects became less selective on black lineups but black subjects became even more selective on black lineups. Both groups displayed own-race bias by being more selective about own-race photos than other-race photos. This lessening of selectivity may make lineups constructed by cross-race lineup constructors less fair than lineups constructed by own-race lineup constructors.     

Does Lineup Size Matter with Child Witnesses

Children’s (N = 89) identification accuracy was examined as a function of lineup size. Participants (8–13 years) viewed a videotaped staged event, described what was witnessed and then were presented with either a target-present or—absent lineup containing 6 versus 12 lineup members. The elimination lineup procedure (Pozzulo and Lindsay J Appl Psychol 38: 2195–2209 1999) was used to present lineups. No significant differences in correct identification rates were found across the target-present sized lineups. In addition, the target was likely to “survive” at a comparable rate regardless of lineup size. Moreover, there was no significant difference in correct rejection rate as a function of lineup size. The non significance of these data are critical given that most research with child witnesses uses 6-person lineups whereas in many real world contexts larger sized lineups are used (e.g., 12-person in Canada).     

Own-age bias in video lineups: a comparison between children and adults

Abstract

The present study investigated whether child (six–eight years of age) and adult witnesses (18–29 years of age) would exhibit an own-age bias when trying to identify targets from video lineups. One hundred and eighty-six participants viewed two filmed events that were identical, except one starred a child target and one a young adult. After a delay of two–three days each witness saw a lineup for the child and adult target. Children exhibited an own-age bias and were better at correctly identifying the own-age target from a target-present (TP) lineup and made more correct rejections for the own-age target-absent (TA) lineup. Adults however, showed a reversed own-age bias for the TP lineups as they made more correct identifications for the child target, but exhibited no bias for the TA lineups. The results suggest that differences in identification accuracy may be due to whether witness age and suspect age overlap.     

Predictors of eyewitness identification decisions from video lineups in England: A field study

Eyewitness identification decisions from 1,039 real lineups in England were analysed. Identification procedures have undergone dramatic change in the United Kingdom over recent years. Video lineups are now standard procedure, in which each lineup member is seen sequentially. The whole lineup is seen twice before the witness can make a decision, and the witness can request additional viewings of the lineup. A key aim of this paper was to investigate the association between repeated viewing and eyewitness decisions. Repeated viewing was strongly associated with increased filler identification rates, suggesting that witnesses who requested additional viewings were more willing to guess. In addition, several other factors were associated with lineup outcomes, including the age difference between the suspect and the witness, the type of crime committed, and delay. Overall, the suspect identification rate was 39%, the filler identification rate was 26% and the lineup rejection rate was 35%. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved).     

Are children less reliable at making visual identifications than adults? A review

The current paper reviews research that has investigated developmental differences in lineup identification. A wealth of studies have shown that children can be as accurate as adults when making a correct identification from a target present lineup (TP), however children are more inclined to choose and thereby make a false identification from a target absent (TA) lineup, as compared to adults. The literature reviewed, suggests that the disparity between children's and adult's performances on TA lineups is due to children being unable to resist the social demands to choose someone from a lineup and/or the need to give a positive response. Employing a silhouette within a lineup, that can be chosen if the target is not recognised, appears to be the most successful technique for reducing false identifications made by child witnesses. Including a silhouette as a part of a lineup, along with the lineup administrator being attired in casual clothing, rather than a uniform, are two simple measures that could make child witness identification evidence more reliable.     

The application of multiple lineups in a field study

Abstract

The usefulness of multiple lineups was tested in a field experiment with nine different targets. Six hundred and forty-eight passers-by were asked for directions in the pedestrian zone of a university town. Subsequently, they were approached by a different person and asked to identify the target from portrait, body, and profile lineups. Additionally, participants were asked to identify a shopping bag that the target had carried. Two of the lineups were target-present, and two target-absent. Diagnosticity ratios (DRs) were computed for target/suspect choices, lineup rejections and foil choices. Compared to foil choices and rejections, target/suspect choices were most diagnostic of guilt. Here, the combination of lineups was superior over individual lineups. Lineup rejections showed some capability of establishing innocence, but with lower DRs than target/suspect choices. Here, combinations did not increase diagnosticity. The diagnosticity of multiple foil choices was acceptable for portrait face lineups but limited for all other lineups or combinations.     

Eyewitness Accuracy Rates in Police Showup and Lineup Presentations: A Meta-Analytic Comparison

Meta-analysis is used to compare identification accuracy rates in showups and lineups. Eight papers were located, providing 12 tests of the hypothesis and including 3013 participants. Results indicate that showups generate lower choosing rates than lineups. In target present conditions, showups and lineups yield approximately equal hit rates, and in target absent conditions, showups produce a significantly higher level of correct rejections. False identification rates are approximately equal in showups and lineups when lineup foil choices are excluded from analysis. Dangerous false identifications are more numerous for showups when an innocent suspect resembles the perpetrator. Function of lineup foils, assessment strategies for false identifications, and the potential impact of biases in lineup practice are suggested as additional considerations in evaluation of showup versus lineup efficacy.     

Simultaneous,Sequential, Elimination,and Wildcard: A Comparison of Lineup Procedures

This study compared four lineup procedures: the simultaneous, sequential, elimination, and wildcard. Two hundred and sixty-nine university students (M = 20.17 years) watched a mock, videotaped crime. Then, following a brief delay, they viewed a 6-person target-present or -absent lineup using one of the four lineup procedures. For target-present lineups, correct identification rates for the four lineup procedures were comparable. In contrast, for target-absent lineups, the correct rejection rate was higher using the elimination lineup procedure compared to the wildcard and simultaneous lineup procedures. Remaining comparisons between lineup procedures found no significant differences. Also diagnosticity ratios were similar across the four procedures.     

Lineup Administrators' Expectations: Their Impact on Eyewitness Confidence

This research focuses on how lineup a administrators influence eyewitnesses' postidentification confidence. What happens to witness confidence when a witness makes an identification that confirms the lineup administrator's expectations; what happens when this expectation is not confirmed? In Experiment 1, participant interviewers (n = 52) administered target-absent photo lineups to participant witnesses (n = 52). The interviewers did not view the simulated crime, but were told the thief's position in the lineup. In every instance this information was false (we used a target-absent lineup). A one-way ANOVA revealed that eyewitness identification confidence was malleable as a function of interviewers' beliefs about the thief's identity. In Experiment 2, participant jurors (n = 80) viewed 40 testimonies of Experiment 1 witnesses (2 participants viewed each testimony). Participant jurors judged all participant witnesses as equally credible despite their varying levels of postidentification confidence.

     

The Effect of Post-ID Feedback on Retrospective Self-Reports in Showups

This study examined the effects of post-identification feedback on witness retrospective self-reports in showups and lineups, and importantly, focused on guilty and innocent suspect identifications. After viewing a mock crime video, participants were asked to identify the suspect from either a target-present or target-absent photo lineup or showup. Participants were randomly assigned to receive confirming feedback (“Great job, you made the correct decision”) or no feedback about their identification, before self-reporting confidence, view, attention, willingness to testify, and trust of a witness with a similar view. We replicated the typical finding that confirming feedback inflated witness self-reports and resulted in a larger proportion of witnesses meeting the credibility threshold necessary to testify. Importantly, we also found that showups had significantly higher self-reports than lineups, despite the equal discriminability achieved in this study between these two procedures. These data provide yet another reason for the police to restrict use of showups.