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.     

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.

A Re-examination of the Effects of Biased Lineup Instructions in Eyewitness Identification

A meta-analytic review of research comparing biased and unbiased instructions in eyewitness identification experiments showed an asymmetry, specifically that biased instructions led to a large and consistent decrease in accuracy in target-absent lineups, but produced inconsistent results for target-present lineups, with an average effect size near zero (N. M. Steblay, 1997). The results for target-present lineups are surprising, and are inconsistent with statistical decision theories (i.e., D. M. Green & J. A. Swets, 1966). A re-examination of the relevant studies and the meta-analysis of those studies shows clear evidence that correct identification rates do increase with biased lineup instructions, and that biased witnesses make correct identifications at a rate considerably above chance. Implications for theory, as well as police procedure and policy, are discussed.     

The effects of target discriminability and criterion placement on accuracy rates in sequential and simultaneous target-present lineups

Abstract

Participants attempted to select previously studied faces from lineups that were administered either sequentially (test faces presented one at a time) or simultaneously (test faces presented altogether). Target discriminability was manipulated by varying the number of facial features that could be used to distinguish the study face from the other test faces (foils) or by varying study face exposure duration. In addition, decision criterion level was manipulated via an instruction manipulation. Results indicated that sequential participants adopted a stricter decision standard under high criterion instructions compared to simultaneous participants. Under liberal criterion setting instructions, the rate at which the target was selected was comparable across lineup procedures. Target discriminability affected target selections to a greater extent in simultaneous compared to sequential lineups. We discuss the applied implications that these findings have regarding correct identifications from lineups.     

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.     

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.     

The effect of authority and social influence on eyewitness suggestibility and person recognition

This study investigated the influence of an authority figure on eyewitness identification. Participants watched a staged crime and then were administered a photo lineup by either an authority (policeman) or non-authority figure (civilian). Participants in the authority condition were more likely to choose a lineup member than those in the non-authority condition. There was no effect of authority, however, on the accuracy of the identification decisions. The lack of a deleterious effect suggests that the presence of a police officer during identification procedures does not create an unduly suggestive situation or have undesirable effects on eyewitness identification decisions. Although witnesses' choosing behaviors did not increase the rate of identification errors, the effect of the administrator's authority on choosing was reduced when unbiased instructions (vs. biased instructions) were presented to the witnesses. Thus, support was found for the use of neutral instructions during eyewitness identification procedures.     

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.     

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.     

A Re-examination of the Effects of Biased Lineup Instructions in Eyewitness Identification

A meta-analytic review of research comparing biased and unbiased instructions in eyewitness identification experiments showed an asymmetry; specifically, that biased instructions led to a large and consistent decrease in accuracy in target-absent lineups, but produced inconsistent results for target-present lineups, with an average effect size near zero (Steblay, 1997). The results for target-present lineups are surprising, and are inconsistent with statistical decision theories (i.e., Green & Swets, 1966). A re-examination of the relevant studies and the meta-analysis of those studies shows clear evidence that correct identification rates do increase with biased lineup instructions, and that biased witnesses make correct identifications at a rate considerably above chance. Implications for theory, as well as police procedure and policy, are discussed.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Effect on Eyewitness Accuracy When Witnesses Are Told versus Not Told That They Will Be Allowed a Second Viewing

Lindsay, Lea, and Fulford (J Appl Psychol 76:741–745, 1991) found that false identifications increased, correct rejections decreased, and correct identifications minimally increased when witnesses were allowed a second viewing of a sequential lineup. We conducted a similar study in which we allowed mock witnesses a second viewing of a sequential lineup. Results indicated that participants who were allowed a second viewing made mostly incorrect identifications. Participants correctly identified the perpetrator more often when they were not told in advance that they would have a second viewing than when they were told. Additionally, those participants who were told that they would be allowed a second viewing incorrectly rejected the lineup more often than those who were not told. The findings yielded conclusions similar to those of Lindsay et al. (J Appl Psychol 76:741–745, 1991) suggesting that witnesses should not be allowed to view the lineup a second time. The results also suggest that, if a repeated lineup is used, witnesses should not be informed of that in advance.     

Age differences (or lack thereof) in discriminability for lineups and showups

Previous research reveals that showups are an inferior eyewitness identification procedure to lineups, but no single study has compared younger and older adults' identification decisions for both of these procedures. We had witnesses watch a mock crime video and then make an identification decision from a fair lineup, a biased lineup, or a showup that contained the perpetrator or a designated innocent suspect. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis showed that identification accuracy was higher from a lineup than from a showup for both age groups, even if the lineup was biased. In addition, calibration curves revealed that witnesses were underconfident when choosing from a fair lineup but overconfident when choosing from a showup. These results reinforce prior research asserting the superiority of lineups over showups.