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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Confidence and accuracy of eyewitness identification from lineups

Recent studies of confidence-accuracy correlations in eyewitness-identification experiments have produced highly variable results (Deffenbacher, 1980; Wells & Murray, 1984) with some correlations near 0 (Malpass & Devine, 1981) and others as high as 0.5 (Brigham et al., 1982). Much of this variability may be accounted for by differences, in the design of the research. Specifically, lineup experiments in which the to-be-identified person (target) is always present tend to produce higher confidence-accuracy correlations than studies also providing blank or target-absent lineups replacing the target with a lookalike. A reanalysis of previously collected data (Lindsay & Wells, 1980; Wallbridge & Lindsay, 1982) revealed that lineup foils (nontargets) were identified with significantly less confidence than targets or lookalikes but that targets and lookalikes were identified with equal confidence. Two experiments were conducted to test the hypothesis that confidence of identification is a function of the similarity of the identified person to the original target. The first experiment using nonstudent subjects (n=53) and multiple targets (n=14) to increase generalizability, demonstrated that the person in the lineup who most closely resembled the target was identified with the highest mean level of confidence. The second experiment examined confidence in identification following a crime staged for 260 introductory psychology students. The results indicated that the similarity of foils to the target (established by independent ratings) was predictive of both the frequency and confidence of identification of faces.     

The effects of the cognitive interview and other methods of context reinstatement on identification

Abstract

Can reinstatement of encoding context aid eyewitness identification? Two experiments are reported in which participants were asked to identify, from both a Blank and a Filled lineup, a target seen 1-week (Experiment 1) or 3-months (Experiment 2) earlier in a staged live interaction. Identifications were made following either a no context reinstatement (NCR), a CI-type reinstate context (CI-CR), a mental and physical (M&PCR) context reinstatement or a multiple reinstatement of context (Multi-CR) manipulation. In Experiment 1 in the Blank lineup condition, correct rejection (CR) and false identification (FID) rates did not differ between the four context manipulation conditions. However, within the different conditions only Multi-CR showed a significant difference between CR and FID. In the Filled lineup condition, neither correct identification (CID), FID, nor non-identification (NID) rates differed between context conditions. Within the four context conditions only Multi-CR produced significantly more CID than FID. However, the difference between CID and NID in this condition did not differ reliably. In Experiment 2, with the Blank lineup, while the rate of CR did not differ between the three context conditions, the rate of FID did, with Multi-CR producing reliably fewer than the other two conditions. In the Filled lineup condition, no differences between the three conditions for NID or FID were observed but a difference did appear for CID, with CI-CR producing the greatest number of hits. These variable results are discussed in terms of the need to consider other factors in explaining supposed context effects on recognition.     

Do pre‐admonition suggestions moderate the effect of unbiased lineup instructions?

We examined the additive and interactive effects of pre‐admonition suggestion and lineup instructions (biased or unbiased) on eyewitness identification rates. Participants watched a mock crime video, completed a target‐absent lineup identification, and completed a retrospective memory questionnaire. Prior to attempting an identification, participants were either exposed or not exposed to pre‐admonition suggestions and received biased or unbiased lineup instructions. The pre‐admonition suggestion indicated that it was likely that the perpetrator was in the lineup (surely, you can pick the perpetrator). The pre‐admonition suggestion increased false identification in the unbiased lineup condition. Furthermore, those who received the pre‐admonition suggestion were more certain in their identifications as well as other testimony‐relevant judgments than were those who did not receive the pre‐admonition suggestion. These results suggest that pre‐lineup suggestion can mitigate the beneficial effects of unbiased lineup instructions.     

EYEWITNESS RECALL AND PHOTO IDENTIFICATION: A FIELD EXPERIMENT

Some 590 men and women were tested in public places for interrogative recall and photo identification of a young woman to whom they had spoken for approximately 15 seconds, either 2 minutes earlier or 4 hours earlier. The target was seen originally either with or without a baseball cap and dark sunglasses. Witnesses were either prepared or not prepared at the time of the encounter for a subsequent memory test. Half of the witnesses were given imagery retrieval instructions or standard retrieval instructions prior to the two memory tests. A separate group of 379 introductory psychology students attempted to predict the performance of the eyewitnesses. Witness preparation was of more importance for recall of clothing characteristics than for physical characteristics. Witness preparation, target disguise, retention interval, gender of witnesses, and retrieval instructions had no significant main effects on identification. Forty-nine per cent of the witnesses given the target-present lineup correctly identified the target, and 62% correctly rejected the target-absent lineup. Student's beliefs in the accuracy of recall and identification were not consistent with eyewitnesses’ performance.     

Lineup Identification by Children: Effects of Clothing Bias

This study examined effects of clothing cues on children's identification accuracy from lineups. Four- to 14-year-olds (n = 228) saw 12 video clips of individuals, each wearing a distinctly colored shirt. After watching each clip children were presented with a target-present or target-absent photo lineup. Three clothing conditions were included. In 2 conditions all lineup members wore the same colored shirt; in the third, biased condition, the shirt color of only one individual matched that seen in the preceding clip (the target in target-present trials and the replacement in target-absent trials). Correct identifications of the target in target-present trials were most frequent in the biased condition, whereas in target-absent trials the biased condition led to more false identifications of the target replacement. Older children were more accurate than younger children, both in choosing the target from target-present lineups and rejecting target-absent lineups. These findings suggest that a simple clothing cue such as shirt color can have a significant impact on children's lineup identification accuracy.     

Social Influence in Eyewitness Recall: A Meta-Analytic Review of Lineup Instruction Effects

Past research has considered the impact of biased police lineup instructions upon eyewitness lineup performance. Biased instructions either suggest to the eyewitness that the perpetrator is in the lineup or otherwise discourage a no choice response. A meta-analysis of 18 studies was employed to review the hypothesis that biased instructions lead to greater willingness to choose and less accurate lineup identifications than do unbiased instructions. The role of moderating variables in the instruction procedure was also considered. In support of the hypothesis, a significantly higher level of choosing followed biased instructions. Lineup type moderated performance accuracy, however. For target-absent lineups the increased level of choosing following biased instructions resulted in reduced identification accuracy. Biased instructions within a target-present lineup generated a higher level of confidence, but had minimal impact on accuracy. Implications for police practice are discussed.     

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.     

Sequential lineup presentation promotes less-biased criterion setting but does not improve discriminability

When compared with simultaneous lineup presentation, sequential presentation has been shown to reduce false identifications to a greater extent than it reduces correct identifications. However, there has been much debate about whether this difference in identification performance represents improved discriminability or more conservative responding. In this research, data from 22 experiments that compared sequential and simultaneous lineups were analyzed using a compound signal-detection model, which is specifically designed to describe decision-making performance on tasks such as eyewitness identification tests. Sequential (cf. simultaneous) presentation did not influence discriminability, but produced a conservative shift in response bias that resulted in less-biased choosing for sequential than simultaneous lineups. These results inform understanding of the effects of lineup presentation mode on eyewitness identification decisions.     

A Meta-Analytic Review of the Effects of High Stress on Eyewitness Memory

In the past 30 years researchers have examined the impact of heightened stress on the fidelity of eyewitness memory. Meta-analyses were conducted on 27 independent tests of the effects of heightened stress on eyewitness identification of the perpetrator or target person and separately on 36 tests of eyewitness recall of details associated with the crime. There was considerable support for the hypothesis that high levels of stress negatively impact both types of eyewitness memory. Meta-analytic Z-scores, whether unweighted or weighted by sample size, ranged from –5.40 to –6.44 (high stress condition–low stress condition). The overall effect sizes were –.31 for both proportion of correct identifications and accuracy of eyewitness recall. Effect sizes were notably larger for target-present than for target-absent lineups, for eyewitness identification studies than for face recognition studies and for eyewitness studies employing a staged crime than for eyewitness studies employing other means to induce stress.     

The reliability of eyewitness identification

This study examines the effects of 14 estimator variables (e.g., disguise of robber, exposure time, weapon visibility) and system variables (e.g., lineup instructions, exposure to mugshots) on a number of measures of eyewitness performance: identification accuracy, choosing rates, confidence in lineup choice, relation between confidence and identification accuracy, memory for peripheral details, memory for physical characteristics of target, and time estimates. Subjects viewed a videotaped reenactment of an armed robbery and later attempted an identification. Characteristics of the videotape and lineup task were manipulated. Prominent findings were as follows: identification accuracy was affected by both estimator and system variables including disguise of robber, weapon visibility, elaboration instructions, and lineup instructions. Memory for peripheral details was positively correlated with choosing on the identification task but negatively correlated with identification accuracy.     

Does methodology matter in eyewitness identification research? The effect of live versus video exposure on eyewitness identification accuracy

The present study examined the effect of mode of target exposure (live versus video) on eyewitness identification accuracy. Adult participants (N=104) were exposed to a staged crime that they witnessed either live or on videotape. Participants were then asked to rate their stress and arousal levels prior to being presented with either a target-present or -absent simultaneous lineup. Across target-present and -absent lineups, mode of target exposure did not have a significant effect on identification accuracy. However, mode of target exposure was found to have a significant effect on stress and arousal levels. Participants who witnessed the crime live had higher levels of stress and arousal than those who were exposed to the videotaped crime. A higher level of arousal was significantly related to poorer identification accuracy for those in the video condition. For participants in the live condition however, stress and arousal had no effect on eyewitness identification accuracy. Implications of these findings in regards to the generalizability of laboratory-based research on eyewitness testimony to real-life crime are discussed.     

Mug Shot Exposure Effects: Does Size Matter?

This research tested whether mug book size moderates mug shot exposure effects. Witnesses to a simulated theft searched either a small, a large, or no mug book, followed by a perpetrator-absent lineup containing a critical foil from the mug book. Contrary to predictions of a transference effect, critical foil lineup identifications did not differ across conditions. To test for a commitment effect, only participants who selected the critical foil in the mug book were considered; there was evidence of a commitment effect in the large mug book condition. Finally, there were more lineup-correct rejections in the large mug book condition; this was explained in terms of the criterion for making mug book choices carrying over to lineup choices.

Guidelines for empirically assessing the fairness of a lineup

Issues regarding the fairness of lineups used for criminal identification are discussed in the context of a distinction between nominal size and functional size. Nominal size (the number of persons in the lineup) is less important for determining the fairness of a lineup than is functional size (the number of lineup members resembling the criminal). Functional size decreases to the extent that the nonsuspect members of the lineup are easily ruled out as not being suspected by the police. The extent to which the identification of the suspect can be considered an independently derived piece of incriminating evidence is positively related to functional size. Empirical estimates of functional size can be obtained through pictures of the corporal lineup from which mock witnesses make guesses of whom they believe the police suspect. A distinction is made between a functional size approach and hypothesis testing approaches. Uses of functional size notions in the court, by police, and in research are discussed.     

Secondary Confessions as Post-identification Feedback: How Jailhouse Informant Testimony Can Alter Eyewitnesses’ Identification Decisions

Prior research has shown that primary confession evidence can alter eyewitnesses’ identifications and self-reported confidence. The present study investigated whether secondary confession evidence from a jailhouse informant could have the same effect. Participants (N?=?368) watched a video of an armed robbery and made an identification decision from a photo lineup. Except for those in the no-feedback conditions, all participants then read that certain lineup members either confessed to the crime, denied involvement, or were implicated by a jailhouse informant. Jailhouse informant testimony implicating the identified lineup member led participants to have significantly higher confidence in their identification. In contrast, jailhouse informant testimony that implicated a lineup member other than the identified led participants to have significantly lower confidence in their initial identification, and 80% of these witnesses changed their identification. These results indicate that jailhouse informant testimony can influence eyewitnesses’ confidence and their identification decisions.