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.     

Children's identification of unfamiliar voices on both target-present and target-absent lineups

ABSTRACT

A robust finding from the eyewitness literature is that children are as accurate as adults on target-present lineups from the age of five years, whereas they continue to make an erroneous false positive identification from a target-absent lineup up until around fourteen years of age (Pozzulo, J. D., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (1998). Identification accuracy of children versus adults: a meta-analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 22(5), 549–570). The current study explores whether the same pattern occurs when voices are used instead of faces. A total of 334 participants from six age groups (6–7-year-olds, 8–9-year-olds, 10–11-year-olds, 12–13-year-olds, 14–15-year-olds and adults) listened to a 30 second audio clip of an unfamiliar voice and were then presented with either a six person target-present or target-absent voice lineup. Overall, participants were more accurate with target-present than target-absent lineups. Moreover, performance on target-present lineups showed adult-like levels of attainment by 8–9 years of age. In contrast, performance on target-absent lineups was extremely poor, with all age groups tending to make a false identification. Confidence was higher when participants made correct rather than incorrect decisions for both types of lineup and this did not change with increasing age. Given these results, both child and adult earwitness evidence needs to be treated with considerable caution.     

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.     

The effect of choice reversals on blindness for identification decisions

The present study examined blindness for identification decisions from target-present (TP) and target-absent (TA) lineups using a field study methodology. Eighty pedestrians were exposed to a staged theft. Subsequently, they were asked to identify the thief and the victim from separate, simultaneous six-person lineups. Their identification decision concerning the thief lineup was manipulated such that participants’ selections were exchanged with a previously unidentified lineup member (choice exchange) and lineup rejections were turned into identifications (choice reversal). Participants were 7–10 times less likely to detect choice exchanges (66.7%) compared with choice reversals (11.2%). Furthermore, identification accuracy was not a prerequisite for detection. Thus, rejections and particularly selections made from both TP and TA lineups are susceptible to choice blindness. Finally, our study implies that for blindness in eyewitness identification decisions between-category changes (i.e. choice reversals) are easier to detect than within-category changes (i.e. choice exchanges).     

An attempt to reduce guessing behavior in children's and adults' eyewitness identifications

The effects of age of witness, gender of witness, lineup presentation, and practice on eyewitness testimony were investigated. Ninety-six elementary-school children and 96 college students viewed a slide sequence of a crime, followed by target-present or target-absent photo identification in sequentially or simultaneously presented lineups. Prior to photo identification, half the subjects received a practice lineup. Children had a higher rate of choosing than adults, resulting in more foil identification errors in both target-present and target-absent lineups. Without prior practice, sequential presentation as compared to simultaneous presentation reduced errors in target-absent lineups for adult witnesses and showed a similar but nonsignificant reduction for child witnesses. With prior practice, sequential presentation lost the advantage over simultaneous presentation in target-absent error reduction. Practice reduced target-absent errors in simultaneous-presentation lineups for both age groups.     

Eyewitness Identifications by Older and Younger Adults: A Meta-Analysis and Discussion

The current meta-analysis compared younger and older adult eyewitness identification accuracy and includes analyses designed to determine what witness and event factors might moderate any differences found. Results showed that, regardless of lineup type and perpetrator age, older eyewitnesses are reliably worse at making correct lineup decisions than younger eyewitnesses whether they are identifying perpetrators or rejecting perpetrator-absent lineups. Discussion of possible causes for this difference in identification accuracy is drawn from cognitive and social psychology literatures, and possible implications for future research and public policy are put forth.     

Children's and adults' eyewitness identification accuracy when a culprit changes his appearance: Comparing simultaneous and elimination lineup procedures

Adults' (N = 239) and children's (N = 177, age range 8–13 years) identification abilities were examined when a culprit underwent a change in appearance following the commission of a crime. Simultaneous and elimination lineup procedures were compared to determine the reliability of each under ‘change in appearance’ conditions. Participants viewed a staged, videotaped theft and then examined a target‐present or ‐absent lineup. Correct identifications (target‐present lineups) decreased following a change in appearance regardless of age of witness and lineup procedure. Children's correct rejection rates (target‐absent lineups) were lower than those of adults. The elimination procedure compared with the simultaneous procedure was more effective at increasing correct rejections when the lineup members matched the culprit's appearance for children and adults. When lineup members did not match the culprit's appearance, correct rejection rates were similar across the two identification procedures for both aged groups.     

Sequential lineup presentation: Patterns and policy

Sequential lineups were offered as an alternative to the traditional simultaneous lineup. Sequential lineups reduce incorrect lineup selections; however, the accompanying loss of correct identifications has resulted in controversy regarding adoption of the technique. We discuss the procedure and research relevant to (1) the pattern of results found using sequential versus simultaneous lineups; (2) reasons (theory) for differences in witness responses; (3) two methodological issues; and (4) implications for policy decisions regarding the adoption of sequential lineups.     

Identification Accuracy of Children versus Adults: A Meta-Analysis

Identification accuracy of children and adults was examined in a meta-analysis. Preschoolers (M = 4 years) were less likely than adults to make correct identifications. Children over the age of 5 did not differ significantly from adults with regard to correct identification rate. Children of all ages examined were less likely than adults to correctly reject a target-absent lineup. Even adolescents (M = 12–13 years) did not reach an adult rate of correct rejection. Compared to simultaneous lineup presentation, sequential lineups increased the child–adult gap for correct rejections. Providing child witnesses with identification practice or training did not increase their correct rejection rates. Suggestions for children's inability to correctly reject target-absent lineups are discussed. Future directions for identification research are presented.     

Co‐witness information influences whether a witness is likely to choose from a lineup

Purpose. Much crime is witnessed by more than one eyewitness, and witnesses may learn information about other witness's decisions throughout the identification and trial process. The objective of this paper was to investigate whether hearing about a co‐witness's type of lineup decision and subsequent confidence level affects another witness's type of lineup choice. Methods. A total of 304 undergraduate students watched a crime video with a confederate co‐witness. After the video, the witnesses completed an identification task. Prior to completing the task, the participant learned that the confederate co‐witness either chose from or rejected the lineup and was subsequently confident or not confident in that decision (or heard no co‐witness information). Participants completed the identification task using either a target present (TP) or target absent (TA) lineup. Results. Overall, those who heard the co‐witness chose from the lineup were more likely to choose from the lineup than those who heard no co‐witness information or who heard the co‐witness rejected the lineup. In addition, witnesses who chose from the lineup and heard the co‐witness chose from or rejected the lineup expressed more confidence in that choice if the co‐witness was more confident versus if the co‐witness was less confident. Conclusions. In cases of multiple witnesses, identification decisions may not be independent pieces of evidence. Therefore, it is important that police separate co‐witnesses throughout the identification process.     

Perspectives on the impact of lineup composition,race, and witness confidence on identification accuracy

This paper addresses a number of issues suggested by the Lindsay and Wells (1980) study on lineup composition and identification accuracy. The interaction between bias in instructions to the witness, presence or absence of the criminal from the lineup, and similarity between the suspect and the lineup foils are discussed. Although Lindsay and Wells suggest that witness confidence has little or no relationship to witness accuracy, it is pointed out that a recent field study found a substantial accuracy-confidence relationship when criminal-present photo lineups were used. There are not yet clearcut findings on the accuracy-confidence relationship in criminal-absent lineups, partially because of ambiguity in the definition of confidence in this situation. Although there is much research on the impact of the race of suspect and witness on identification accuracy, little attention has been paid to the race of the person who constructs the photo or corporeal lineup. Recent research results lead to the prediction of an interaction between all three of these factors on identification accuracy, with greatest accuracy when the lineup constructor and lineup members are of the same race and the witness is of a different race. Issues in the applicability of the results of Bayesian analyses to the judicial system are briefly discussed. Potential issues include the tendency to see researchers solely as advocates for the defense, and the tendency of people to disregard statistical summaries such as base rate data and research results when making individual decisions. An additional issue concerns Bayesian diagnosticity ratios (derived from rates of correct and false identifications) which can be logically and statistically equivalent to one another but differ considerably in their legal applications and value relevance.     

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).     

Eyewitness testimony of children in target-present and target-absent lineups

The effects of age of witness and age of suspect on eyewitness testimony were investigated. Forty-eight elementary school children and 48 college students viewed a slide sequence of a mock crime. This was followed by target-present or target-absent photo identification with a no-choice option, central and peripheral questions related to the crime, and a second photo identification. In photo identification, child witnesses had a higher rate of choosing than adult witnesses, suggesting that children have more lax criteria of responding. The accuracy data showed similar levels of sensitivity across ages although there was a trend toward reduced accuracy of child witnesses in target-absent lineups. All witnesses made more total choices and more correct rejections with child-suspect lineups than adult-suspect lineups. Central questions were answered better than peripheral questions by both age groups, but adults made significantly more “don't know” choices.     

A Preidentification Questioning Effect: Serendipitously Increasing Correct Rejections

A study designed to test the effects of delay between crime and lineup on identification accuracy produced an unusually high rate of correct rejection from target-absent, simultaneous lineups (J. E. Dysart, 1999). Examining the procedures indicated that one question included in a preidentification questionnaire differed from those used previously. The question asked witnesses if they believed they would be able to correctly reject a target-absent lineup. An experiment (N = 138) was conducted to explore the impact of preidentification questions, including this new question, on witness accuracy. Results revealed that asking witnesses these questions, prior to viewing the lineup, significantly increased correct rejections of target-absent simultaneous lineups.     

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).     

The Effect of Lineup Member Similarity on Recognition Accuracy in Simultaneous and Sequential Lineups

Two experiments investigated whether remembering is affected by the similarity of the study face relative to the alternatives in a lineup. In simultaneous and sequential lineups, choice rates and false alarms were larger in low compared to high similarity lineups, indicating criterion placement was affected by lineup similarity structure (Experiment 1). In Experiment 2, foil choices and similarity ranking data for target present lineups were compared to responses made when the target was removed from the lineup (only the 5 foils were presented). The results indicated that although foils were selected more often in target-removed lineups in the simultaneous compared to the sequential condition, responses shifted from the target to one of the foils at equal rates across lineup procedures.     

Distinguishing accurate from inaccurate eyewitness identifications with an optional deadline procedure

Abstract

Two experiments examined the efficacy of an optional deadline lineup procedure for distinguishing correct from incorrect eyewitness identification decisions. The procedure involved briefly presenting the lineup, removing the lineup from view, then giving participants the option of either making an identification decision or viewing the lineup again. When compared with participants operating under a forced deadline (i.e. forced to respond after the brief presentation) or standard lineup instructions, the optional deadline procedure identified participants with an impressive probability of having made a correct identification when used with target-present lineups and biased instructions. With unbiased instructions, the optional deadline produced clear discrimination between correct and incorrect identification decisions for choosers and, importantly, also for non-choosers. Possible strategies for improving the efficacy of the procedure are suggested.     

The Mystery Man Can Increase the Reliability of Eyewitness Identifications for Older Adult Witnesses

Some groups of eyewitnesses, such as older adults and children, are less likely to correctly reject a target-absent (TA) line-up, as compared to younger adults. Previous research reports that using a silhouette in a video line-up called the ‘mystery man’ could increase correct rejections for TA lineups for child eyewitnesses, without reducing correct identifications for target-present (TP) line-ups (Havard and Memon in Appl Cogn Psychol 27:50–59, 2013). The current study, using older and younger adults, investigated whether using the mystery man would also increase the identification accuracy for older adults, without impairing younger adults’ identification accuracy. The results found that older adults in the ‘mystery man’ condition rejected TA line-ups significantly more often than those in the control condition (52 vs. 24 %), with no significant effect upon the TP line-ups. For the younger adults, the mystery man had no influence on identification responses for the TA or TP line-ups. Our findings suggest the mystery man technique may be beneficial for older adults, without detrimentally affecting the accuracy for younger adults, and thus could increase the reliability of eyewitness evidence, where video line-ups are employed.     

Sequential Lineup Laps and Eyewitness Accuracy

Police practice of double-blind sequential lineups prompts a question about the efficacy of repeated viewings (laps) of the sequential lineup. Two laboratory experiments confirmed the presence of a sequential lap effect: an increase in witness lineup picks from first to second lap, when the culprit was a stranger. The second lap produced more errors than correct identifications. In Experiment 2, lineup diagnosticity was significantly higher for sequential lineup procedures that employed a single versus double laps. Witnesses who elected to view a second lap made significantly more errors than witnesses who chose to stop after one lap or those who were required to view two laps. Witnesses with prior exposure to the culprit did not exhibit a sequential lap effect.