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.     

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).     

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.

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.     

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).     

‘You caught ’em!’…or not? Feedback affects investigators’ recollections of speech cues thought to signal honesty and deception

Purpose. When eyewitnesses to crime receive feedback about their choice of a suspect from a line‐up (or post‐identification feedback), such information can substantially alter their recollections of the witnessing experience. This study examined whether feedback exerts similar effects on investigators’ recollections of a suspect's behaviours. Methods. Participant‐investigators received training on speech cues that they were told, when present in a speaker's account, signal either honesty or deception. After hearing a suspect's account of a theft, participants decided whether the suspect was lying or telling the truth. One‐third of participants subsequently received immediate confirming feedback about their performance, while another third received disconfirming feedback. The remaining one‐third of participants did not receive feedback about their decision. Finally, participants rated the frequencies of speech cues that they had been instructed to detect in the suspect's account. Results. Disconfirming feedback significantly altered retrospective judgments about the characteristics of the suspect's account. Specifically, when told that the decision they made about the speaker's credibility was incorrect, participants judged the speaker as having exhibited fewer behaviours consistent with the credibility decision they had made, relative to those who either received no feedback or confirming feedback. Conclusions. Biases in recollections of a suspect may have consequences in real‐world interrogations wherein investigators assess credibility on the basis of numerous behavioural cues. Results are discussed in light of findings of post‐identification feedback studies on eyewitnesses.     

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.

     

Improving eyewitness identification accuracy by screening out those who say they don't know

Improving eyewitness identification evidence remains a key priority for research. Basic laboratory research has consistently demonstrated that allowing participants to withhold answers about which they are unsure leads to improved accuracy. Surprisingly, this approach has not been the subject of comprehensive investigation in the eyewitness identification literature. In this article, we explored the utility of allowing uncertain witnesses to opt out of an identification decision, by providing an explicit don't know option. Further, we contrasted the rate of use of this explicit option with the frequency that participants spontaneously withheld a decision when asked to respond in their own words. Four hundred and twenty participants witnessed a mock crime video before being presented with a showup of the perpetrator or an innocent suspect. Participants were tested either immediately or after a 3-week delay, with one of the three report options: Participants either made their choice in their own words (spontaneous report), chose between identifying and rejecting the showup (forced-report), or chose between identification, rejection and don't know (free-report). Only 2.2% of witnesses spontaneously used a don't know response, compared to 19.3% who used it when the option was explicit. Compared with the forced-report decisions, free-report decisions were more accurate, more diagnostic of the suspect's guilt or innocence, and came at no cost to the number of correct decisions rendered. These data suggest that utilisation of an explicit don't know option may be of practical value.     

The information gained from witnesses' responses to an initial "blank" lineup

Wells ("The psychology of lineup identifications," Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1984, 14, 89-103) proposed that a blank lineup (an initial lineup of known-to-be-innocent foils) can be used to screen eyewitnesses; witnesses who chose from a blank lineup (initial choosers) were more likely to make an error on a second lineup that contained a suspect than were witnesses who rejected a blank lineup (initial nonchoosers). Recent technological advances (e.g., computer-administered lineups) may overcome many of the practical difficulties cited as a barrier to the use of blank lineups. Our research extended knowledge about the blank lineup procedure by investigating the underlying causes of the difference in identification performance between initial choosers and initial nonchoosers. Studies 1a and 1b (total, N = 303) demonstrated that initial choosers were more likely to reject a second lineup than initial nonchoosers and witnesses who did not view a blank lineup, implying that cognitive biases (e.g., confirmation bias and commitment effects) influenced initial choosers' identification decisions. In Study 2 (N = 200), responses on a forced-choice identification test provided evidence that initial choosers have, on average, poorer memories for the culprit than do initial nonchoosers. We also investigated the usefulness of blank lineups for interpreting identification evidence. Diagnosticity ratios suggested that suspect identifications made by initial nonchoosers (cf. initial choosers) should have a greater impact on estimates of the likely guilt of the suspect. Furthermore, for initial nonchoosers, higher confidence in blank lineup rejections was associated with higher diagnosticity for subsequent suspect identifications. These results have implications for policy to guide the collection and interpretation of identification evidence. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved).     

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.     

Blind lineup administration as a prophylactic against the postidentification feedback effect

Confidence and other testimony-relevant judgments may be distorted when witnesses are given confirming postidentification feedback, and double-blind procedures-wherein the lineup administrator does not know the identity of the suspect-are a commonly proposed, but untested, remedy for this effect. In the current study, mock witnesses viewed a staged crime video followed by a target-present or target-absent lineup where the administrator was or was not presumed to know the identity of the suspect. After making an identification decision, witnesses were or were not given realistic, but nonidentification-specific, feedback, and then confidence and other judgments were assessed. A significant interaction was found between blind condition and feedback such that feedback inflated confidence and other judgments in presumed nonblind conditions only; feedback had no effect on participants in presumed blind conditions. As predicted by the selective cue integration framework-a theoretical model suggested to explain the interaction between presumed blind administration and feedback-this interaction was significant only for inaccurate participants. These results suggest that blind administration may serve as a prophylactic against the negative effects of postidentification feedback. In addition, the effectiveness of our subtle feedback in influencing judgments suggests that lineup administrators should take care not to provide any feedback to eyewitnesses. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved).     

The showup identification procedure: An exploration of systematic biases

Purpose. Showups are common, yet little research has investigated the biasing factors that may influence showup identifications. We investigated the effects of cross‐race conditions and clothing bias on showup identification decisions. Additionally, we explored identification decisions made in a subsequent lineup dependent on race, clothing, and showup‐target‐presence. Methods. Participants watched a mock crime and were presented with a showup in which suspect race, target‐presence, and the clothing worn by the suspect were varied. Following a delay, participants viewed a target‐present or ‐absent lineup and were asked to make a second identification decision. Results. Presentation of the suspect in the clothing worn by the perpetrator increased choosing rates in both own‐race and other‐race conditions. Despite this, differential patterns of decision response latencies indicated that eyewitnesses may use clothing information differently when making own‐race compared to other‐race identification decisions. No evidence for an own‐race bias in showup identifications was found; however, other‐race lineup identifications were less accurate than own‐race lineup identifications. Further, participants in own‐race and other‐race conditions differed in the extent to which they were affected by multiple identification procedures. Viewing an own‐race innocent suspect in a showup increased subsequent false lineup identifications, while choosing the innocent suspect from the showup was necessary to increase false lineup identifications in other‐race conditions. Conclusions. Different situational factors may affect the identification accuracy of eyewitnesses in own‐race and other‐race conditions for both showup and lineup procedures. Particular caution is advised when showups are clothing‐biased and multiple identification procedures are used.     

Investigating Investigators: How Presentation Order Influences Participant–Investigators’ Interpretations of Eyewitness Identification and Alibi Evidence

Presentation order of ID and Alibi evidence was manipulated for undergraduate participants who conducted a simulated police investigation. Experiment 1 found a recency effect when an eyewitness rejected the investigator’s suspect. Experiment 2 also examined order effects, exploring how participant–investigators evaluated alibi information in addition to eyewitness ID information. When investigators saw the witness identify the suspect but also received a strong alibi for that suspect a recency effect occurred, such that whichever piece of information occurred at the end of the procedure had the strongest impact on investigators. Thus, type of evidence and evidence order both had a dramatic influence on participant–investigators’ decisions.     

When an Alibi Is Not Enough: Judgments of Evidence Needed to Lay Charges in a Burglary Case

Laypersons were asked to assume the role of investigators to explore judgments of what evidence is needed to make an arrest in a criminal investigation when an alibi witness is present. Participants were sensitive to the relationship between the alibi witness and the suspect and were more likely to believe an alibi provided by someone unrelated to the suspect, as evidenced by requests for more physical evidence against the suspect than when the alibi corroborator was a family member. In addition, when presented with contradictory evidence, the age of the alibi witness became an important consideration. Age alone did not impact perceptions of evidence adequacy; however, when an (adult) eyewitness provided testimony that contradicted a child alibi witness, participants demonstrated partiality towards believing the child as evidenced by (a) more requests for physical evidence to be convinced the child was wrong and to arrest the suspect and (b) higher ratings of alibi witness credibility. This effect was not seen when the eyewitness’s testimony contradicted an alibi provided by an adult. The results provide insight for investigators and legal counsel regarding the influence of varying types of alibi witness evidence.     

Instruction Bias and Lineup Presentation Moderate the Effects of Administrator Knowledge on Eyewitness Identification

Pairs (N = 234) of witnesses and lineup administrators completed an identification task in which administrator knowledge, lineup presentation, instruction bias, and target presence were manipulated. Administrator knowledge had the greatest effect on identifications of the suspect for simultaneous photospreads paired with biased instructions, with single-blind administrations increasing identifications of the suspect. When biased instructions were given, single-blind administrations produced fewer foil identifications than double-blind administrations. Administrators exhibited a greater proportion of biasing behaviors during single-blind administrations than during double-blind administrations. The diagnosticity of identifications of the suspect in double-blind administrations was double their diagnosticity in single-blind administrations. These results suggest that when biasing factors are present to increase a witness’s propensity to guess, single-blind administrator behavior influences witnesses to identify the suspect.     

Moving Forward: Response to “Studying Eyewitness Investigations in the Field”

Field studies of eyewitness identification are richly confounded. Determining which confounds undermine interpretation is important. The blind administration confound in the Illinois study is said to undermine it’s value for understanding the relative utility of simultaneous and sequential lineups. Most criticisms of the Illinois study focus on filler identifications, and related inferences about the importance of the blind confound. We find no convincing evidence supporting this line of attack and wonder at filler identifications as the major line of criticism. More debilitating problems impede using the Illinois study to address the simultaneous versus sequential lineup controversy: inability to estimate guilt independent of identification evidence, lack of protocol compliance monitoring, and assessment of lineups quality. Moving forward requires removing these limitations.     

辨认笔录证据能力问题研究——以新《刑事诉讼法》为视角

辨认笔录作为新型的证据种类为新《刑事诉讼法》所确认,在辨认程序缺乏立法规制的情况下,如何对其可靠性和合法性进行审查判断成为实践中的难题。"两院三部"联合制定的《死刑案件证据规定》初步确立了辨认结果的审查判断规则,为法庭审查和采信辨认证据提供了一定的根据。但是,在辨认录像制度、见证人在场制度以及警察出庭作证制度尚未有效确立的情况下,对具有"传闻证据"性质的辨认笔录采用书面审查的方法仍具有相当大的局限性,不但难以发现辨认过程中存在的程序瑕疵和程序违法问题,而且无法完成对辨认结果可靠性的实质审查任务。本文针对我国侦查实践中常用的列队辨认和照片辨认程序,提出了具体的审查内容和方法,对"暗示性辨认"提出了具有可操作性的判断规则。对于辨认结果证据能力的认定,可以借鉴美国的"总体情况规则",采用"可靠性"判断标准,对于违反辨认规则获得的辨认结果,并不当然否定其证据能力,当该结果获得了"真实性的情况保障"时,可以作为定案根据。     

Is there a magical time boundary for diagnosing eyewitness identification accuracy in sequential line‐ups?

We examined whether eyewitness identification latencies for sequential line‐up decisions indicate an optimum time boundary that reliably discriminates accurate from inaccurate decisions. Participants (N = 381) observed a crime simulation and attempted two separate identifications from target‐present or target‐absent sequential line‐ups. As has previously been found with simultaneous line‐ups, the optimum time boundary identified did not reliably discriminate accurate from inaccurate identifications for both line‐up targets. Diagnosticity for choosers was, however, much higher at very high confidence levels than at lower levels. Possible reasons for why one index of signal strength (confidence), but not another (latency), might postdict accuracy within the sequential framework were presented.     

Probative Value of Absolute and Relative Judgments in Eyewitness Identification

It is well-accepted that eyewitness identification decisions based on relative judgments are less accurate than identification decisions based on absolute judgments. However, the theoretical foundation for this view has not been established. In this study relative and absolute judgments were compared through simulations of the WITNESS model (Clark, Appl Cogn Psychol 17:629–654, 2003) to address the question: Do suspect identifications based on absolute judgments have higher probative value than suspect identifications based on relative judgments? Simulations of the WITNESS model showed a consistent advantage for absolute judgments over relative judgments for suspect-matched lineups. However, simulations of same-foils lineups showed a complex interaction based on the accuracy of memory and the similarity relationships among lineup members.