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.     

Are jurors' perceptions of eyewitness credibility affected by the cognitive interview?

Abstract

Ninety-one college subjects listened to Cognitive Interviews (CI) and Standard police interviews of 7-year old children who were attempting to describe an earlier incident of playing a game of Simon Says. The subjects evaluated the witness's credibility and also the interviewer's manipulativeness. The perceived credibility of the witness was not affected by the type of interview, i.e., the CI did not render the witness unduly credible. In addition, the CI interviewer was judged to be less manipulative than the Standard police interviewer. These results were discussed in light of some potential legal concerns about using the CI.     

The Self-Administered Interview: a means of improving children's eyewitness performance?

Abstract

In order to obtain the most informative and correct statements, witnesses should be heard as soon as possible after the incident. However, this is not always possible. This experimental study investigated whether completing a Self-Administered Interview form (SAI) immediately after a critical event could enhance children's witness performance at a later stage. Children (N = 194, age 11–12) reported their memory of an event in a structured SAI, an open SAI, or did not report their memory (control). Two weeks later, the children were interviewed about the event. Before the interview, half of the children were subjected to social influence from a co-witness. Children's free recall of the event was enhanced by the SAI. More precisely, children in the SAI-Structured condition reported more details about the event than children in the SAI-Open condition and the control condition, without a loss of accuracy. The SAI manipulation did not, however, reduce children's vulnerability to social influence. The results suggest that the use of a SAI might prove a simple and yet effective way of increasing the quality of statements from child witnesses in some situations.     

Does constructing a facial composite affect eyewitness memory? A research synthesis and meta-analysis

Journal of Experimental Criminology - We conducted a meta-analysis to assess whether the construction of facial composites affects witnesses’ lineup identification decisions. We located 23...     

Can a witness report hearsay evidence unintentionally? The effects of discussion on eyewitness memory

Abstract

When eyewitnesses are exposed to misinformation about an event from a co-witness, they often incorporate this misinformation in their recall of the event. The current research aimed to investigate whether this memory conformity phenomenon is due to change in the witness's memory for the event, or to social pressures to conform to the co-witness's account. Participants were shown a crime video and then asked to discuss the video in groups, with some receiving misinformation about the event from their discussion partners. After a one-week delay some participants were warned about possible misinformation before all participants provided their own account of the event. In Study 1, participants made remember/know judgments about the items recalled, and in Study 2 they indicated the source of their memories. Co-witness information was incorporated into participants’ testimonies, and this effect was not reduced by warnings or source monitoring instructions, suggesting memory change may have occurred. However, there was some indication that remember/know judgments may help distinguish between ‘real’ memories and co-witness information.     

Can training improve eyewitness identification? The effect of internal feature focus on memory for faces

Evidence suggests that individuals rely on external features such as hair and face shape when processing and recognising unfamiliar faces. This is problematic in a forensic setting because hairstyle can be changed easily. In two studies we examined whether training individuals to focus more on the stable, internal features of the face (e.g. eyes, nose and mouth) and hence less on the changeable external features would improve identification accuracy. In Study 1, participants were instructed to focus on: (1) internal features, (2) external features, or (3) both internal and external features. Participants’ eye movements were monitored while they studied target faces, which they later tried to identify from an array that included the target with a changed appearance. In Study 2, participants were instructed to focus on: (1) internal features, (2) external features, or (3) given no instructions. Participants were required to identify target faces from line-ups, where they were presented either unchanged or with an altered hairstyle. Results suggested that training individuals to attend to internal features of unfamiliar faces may improve identification accuracy in the common situation where external features have changed between presentation and identification. However, internal feature focus may decrease identification accuracy when external features are unchanged.     

Prior knowledge influences interpretations of eyewitness confidence statements: ‘The witness picked the suspect,they must be 100% sure%

When an eyewitness identifies a suspect from a lineup, it is important to know how certain they are about the decision. Even though eyewitnesses are likely to express certainty with words, past research shows that verbal confidence statements (e.g. ‘I’m pretty sure’) are prone to systematic misinterpretation. Until now, no one has examined how an evaluator's prior knowledge, such as which lineup member is the police suspect, influences their interpretation of eyewitness confidence about a lineup identification. Experiments 1 and 3 show that participants perceived the identical statement of confidence as meaning a higher and lower level of certainty, respectively, when the eyewitness's selection either matched or mismatched the police's suspect. Experiment 2 shows that these effects generally persist when the bias manipulation is manipulated between-subjects. Finally, Experiment 3 finds that clarifying the witness's statement with numeric information (e.g. I’m 80% sure) does not eliminate the influence of biasing information.     

How reliable are eyewitness memories? Effects of retention interval,violence of act,and gender stereotypes on observers' judgments of their own memory regarding witnessed act and perpetrator

An experiment was conducted to evaluate the effects of (i) stimulus person's gender, (ii) type of act (neutral or violent), and (iii) retention interval (short or long) on observers' memory of a stimulus person. Participants were presented with one of two acts: neutral (walking around in a store) or violent (robbing a store). The retention interval was 10 minutes or one–three weeks. The dependent variables were questionnaire items concerning the participants' memory of (1) the stimulus person's appearance and (2) the event, and (3) rating scales where the participants were asked to evaluate the stimulus person's aggressiveness, insensitivity, and other personality traits as well as characteristics of the act. Results showed that when the act was violent, and a long retention interval was used, a female, but not a male, stimulus person was evaluated less harshly than with a short retention interval (enhancement of gender stereotype); a stimulus person was seen as behaving in a more masculine way when performing a violent rather than a neutral act; witnessing the violent act resulted in better self-rated memory of the stimulus person; and with increasing retention interval, the violent act was seen as less negative and the neutral act as more negative (regression toward the mean).     

Comparing the effectiveness of <Emphasis Type="Italic">Henderson</Emphasis> instructions and expert testimony: Which safeguard improves jurors’ evaluations of eyewitness evidence?

Objectives

The New Jersey Supreme Court recently determined that jurors may not be able to effectively evaluate eyewitness evidence on their own. As a result, the Court proposed the use of judicial instructions to assist jurors (called Henderson instructions) and suggested the implementation of these instructions would reduce the need for expert testimony. We tested the efficacy of these instructions compared to alternative instructions and expert testimony.

Methods

We utilized a mock trial paradigm, randomly assigning 452 participants to 1 of 20 videotaped trial conditions that varied the quality of eyewitness evidence (both witnessing and identification conditions) and the type of safeguard presented during the mock trial.

Results

Jurors were sensitive to the quality of identification conditions on their own. Jurors were more likely to convict when identification conditions were good and less likely when identification conditions were poor. This relationship was mediated by eyewitness credibility ratings. Expert testimony resulted in skepticism by reducing the likelihood that jurors would convict regardless of the quality of witnessing and identification conditions. No variation of the instructions influenced verdicts.

Conclusions

While jurors were sensitive to the quality of identification conditions on their own, we observed no such effect for the quality of witnessing conditions, even with the aid of instructions and/or expert testimony. Both Henderson instructions and expert testimony may be insufficient for assisting jurors to effectively evaluate problematic witnessing conditions. Future research should examine the use of alternative safeguards.