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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Simultaneous Lineups,Sequential Lineups,and Showups: Eyewitness Identification Decisions of Adults and Children

Two experiments were conducted comparing the identification accuracy of children aged 3–15 years (N = 307) and undergraduates (N = 384) using target-present and target-absent simultaneous and sequential lineups and showups. Correct identification rates tended not to vary across either age of subject or identification procedure. However, children show a significant tendency to guess as indicated by their lower rate of correct rejection when the target is absent. The tendency for children to make false positive choices was particularly evident with showups.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.

     

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.     

Are accurate witnesses more likely to make absolute judgments?

The present study tested the Two-Judgment Theory of Eyewitness Identification Accuracy. Specifically, the extent to which participants were able to engage in an absolute judgment strategy was manipulated by varying the time available to view a lineup. Providing a limited exposure to a lineup should “interrupt” decision making, whereby witnesses can only engage a relative strategy, thus leading to higher false positive responding given a target-absent lineup. Seventy-four adults viewed a 1-minute video that exposed them to an unknown target and subsequently viewed the lineup for a limited (2 s) or an unlimited amount of time. Although false positive rates were similar across conditions, accurate witnesses were more confident than inaccurate witnesses. Confidence was negatively correlated with response latency such that witnesses who took more time to make a decision were less confident in their decisions compared to witnesses who made more rapid decisions. Response latency did not differ for accurate and inaccurate witnesses. Limitations and suggestions for future research on the Two-Judgment Theory are discussed.     

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).     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Selecting Lineup Foils in Eyewitness Identification Experiments: Experimental Control and Real-World Simulation

Experimental research on eyewitness identification follows a standard principle of experimental design. Perpetrator-present and perpetrator-absent lineups are constructed with the same foils, so that the two conditions are identical except for the presence or absence of the true perpetrator of the crime. However, this aspect of the design simulates conditions that do not correspond to those of real criminal investigations. Specifically, these conditions can create perp-absent lineups in which the foils are selected based on their similarity to an unknown person--the real perpetrator. Analysis of the similarity relations predicts that when foils for perp-absent lineups are selected based on their match to the perpetrator the false identification rate will be lower than if the foils are selected based on their match to the innocent suspect. This prediction was confirmed in an experiment that compared these two perp-absent lineup conditions. These results suggest that false identification rates in previous experiments would have been higher if the foils had been selected based on their match to the innocent suspect, rather than the absent perpetrator.     

Eyewitness Accuracy Rates in Sequential and Simultaneous Lineup Presentations: A Meta-Analytic Comparison

Most police lineups use a simultaneous presentation technique in which eyewitnesses view all lineup members at the same time. Lindsay and Wells (R. C. L. Lindsay & G. L. Wells, 1985) devised an alternative procedure, the sequential lineup, in which witnesses view one lineup member at a time and decide whether or not that person is the perpetrator prior to viewing the next lineup member. The present work uses the technique of meta-analysis to compare the accuracy rates of these presentation styles. Twenty-three papers were located (9 published and 14 unpublished), providing 30 tests of the hypothesis and including 4,145 participants. Results showed that identification of perpetrators from target-present lineups occurs at a higher rate from simultaneous than from sequential lineups. However, this difference largely disappears when moderator variables approximating real world conditions are considered. Also, correct rejection rates were significantly higher for sequential than simultaneous lineups and this difference is maintained or increased by greater approximation to real world conditions. Implications of these findings are discussed.     

Eyewitness identification by 5-to 6-year-old children

Thirty-four 5-to 6-year-old children participated in a unique event in which children interacted with 4 individuals-2 for a long period of time and 2 for a brief period only. Each child was interviewed 1 to 2 days later with photographic lineups that contained the target individuals (target-present) or with lineups that did not (target-absent). When tested with target-present lineups, 5-to 6-year-old children were very accurate in identifying individuals with whom they had prolonged exposure, and were also accurate when asked to identify an individual who was present only briefly, but who was part of a salient aspect of the same event. In contrast, when tested with target-absent lineups, children's performance was very poor regardless of whether the to-be-identified individual had been seen briefly or for a prolonged period of time. These data have important implications for eyewitness identification by young children in clinical and legal settings.     

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.