Eyewitness Lineups: Is the Appearance-Change Instruction a Good Idea?

The Department of Justice's Guide for lineups recommends warning eyewitnesses that the culprit's appearance might have changed since the time of the crime. This appearance-change instruction (ACI) has never been empirically tested. A video crime with four culprits was viewed by 289 participants who then attempted to identify the culprits from four 6-person arrays that either included or did not include the culprit. Participants either received the ACI or not and all were warned that the culprit might or might not be in the arrays. The culprits varied in how much their appearance changed from the video to their lineup arrays, but the ACI did not improve identification decisions for any of the lineups. Collapsed over the four culprits, the ACI increased false alarms and filler identifications but did not increase culprit identifications. The ACI reduced confidence and increased response latency. Two processes that could account for these results are discussed, namely a decision criterion shift and a general increase in ecphoric similarity.     

Is Manipulative Intent Necessary to Mitigate the Eyewitness Post-Identification Feedback Effect?

Feedback suggestive of mistaken eyewitnesses claiming that they identified the correct person leads to distorted retrospective judgments of certainty, view, and other testimony-relevant measures. This feedback effect can be significantly mitigated if witnesses later learn that the feedback source did not know which lineup member was the correct person and had a manipulative intent (post-feedback suspicion manipulation). We replicated the post-feedback suspicion effect and used a mistake condition showing that the manipulative intent is not a necessary component, thereby ruling out reactance-type interpretations of the post-feedback suspicion effect. Some conditions included instructions to ensure relevant processing of the feedback before the post-feedback suspicion manipulations, but these processing instructions did not mitigate the effect. The results suggest that these retrospective judgments (e.g., certainty, attention, view) remain malleable as new information unfolds.     

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.     

When Does Evidence of Eyewitness Confidence Inflation Affect Judgments in a Criminal Trial?

Two studies investigated perceptions of eyewitness confidence inflation: increases in a witness's confidence between the time of the identification and the trial. Experiment 1 (N = 90) demonstrated that, for White participants, assessments of the strength of the defense case, the eyewitness's view, and participants' confidence in the eyewitness's accuracy were more favorable to the defense when there was evidence that the eyewitness's confidence increased over time (mere inflation condition), compared with a control condition. In addition, assessments of the defendant's guilt and the eyewitness's accuracy were more favorable to the defense when the eyewitness was aggressively challenged about the change in her confidence report (inflation + challenge). Experiment 2 (N = 360) demonstrated that, for Hispanic participants, sensitivity to confidence inflation did not interact with manipulations of the eyewitness's or defendant's race (White vs. Hispanic). In addition, the confidence inflation effect did not replicate with the Hispanic participants. Results are interpreted in terms of the ingroup bias in legal judgments and directions for future research.     

The Effect of Retention Interval on the Confidence–Accuracy Relationship for Eyewitness Identification

Recent research using a calibration approach indicates that eyewitness confidence assessments obtained immediately after a positive identification decision provide a useful guide as to the likely accuracy of the identification. This study extended research on the boundary conditions of the confidence–accuracy (CA) relationship by varying the retention interval between encoding and identification test. Participants (N = 1,063) viewed one of five different targets in a community setting and attempted an identification from an 8-person target-present or -absent lineup either immediately or several weeks later. Compared to the immediate condition, the delay condition produced greater overconfidence and lower diagnosticity. However, for choosers at both retention intervals there was a meaningful CA relationship and diagnosticity was much stronger at high than low confidence levels.     

Commentary on “Studying Eyewitness Investigations in the Field”: A Look Forward

Schacter et al. (2007, this issue) address the controversy surrounding an Illinois pilot project that attempted to compare sequential versus simultaneous police lineup formats. The statement by these experts will guide the design and execution of future field lineup experiments. This commentary discusses three aspects of field studies that pose challenges as lineup experiments are interpreted: the imprecise meaning of the dependent measure (eyewitness decisions), the limitations of single studies, and the necessity to devise public policy from incomplete knowledge. A combination of laboratory and field information provides the means to determine best practices in eyewitness identification procedures.     

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.     

Eyewitness Memory of a Supermarket Robbery: A Case Study of Accuracy and Confidence After 3 Months

In this case study, 14 witnesses of an armed robbery were interviewed after 3 months. Security camera recordings were used to assess memory accuracy. Of all information that could be remembered about 84% was correct. Although accurately recalled information had a higher confidence level on average than inaccurately recalled information, the mean accuracy–confidence correlation was rather modest (0.38). These findings indicate that confidence is not a reliable predictor of accuracy. A higher level of self-reported, post-event thinking about the incident was associated with higher confidence levels, while a higher level of self-reported emotional impact was associated with greater accuracy. A potential source of (mis)information, a reconstruction of the robbery broadcasted on TV, did not alter the original memories of the witnesses.     

Is There Touch in the Game of Twister®? The Effects of Innocuous Touch and Suggestive Questions on Children's Eyewitness Memory

Preschool children (ages 48–70 months, N = 48) experienced 2 to-be-remembered events (i.e., the games Twister^® and Shapes) that included either innocuous bodily touch or no touch. Participants were interviewed 7 days later and asked direct (“Did Amy kiss you?”) or suggestive “tag” questions (“Amy kissed you, didn't she?”) equated for content. Results indicated that children who were innocuously touched were no more likely to falsely assent to “abuse-related” touch questions (e.g., “Amy touched your bottom, didn't she?”) than were children who were not touched. However, children who were asked tag questions responded at chance levels, thereby making high errors of commission in response to abuse-touch questions relative to their no-tag counterparts who responded to “abuse questions” accurately 93% of the time. Children who were asked tag questions assented at a higher rate to general forensic questions (“Amy took your picture, didn't she?”) than did children asked direct questions, and children assented at higher rates to “abuse-touch” questions than to general forensic questions. Results are discussed in terms of prior research on interviewing techniques and adult influence on children's testimony.     

After 30 Years,What Do We Know about What Jurors Know? A Meta-Analytic Review of Lay Knowledge Regarding Eyewitness Factors

Surveys typically characterize lay knowledge of eyewitness factors as low and highly variable. However, there are notable differences across methodologies, samples, and individual factors. To examine these differences systematically, we took a meta-analytic approach to reviewing the findings of 23 surveys assessing lay knowledge of eyewitness issues. Our analyses examined the beliefs of 4,669 respondents. Overall, respondents correctly agreed with survey items approximately two-thirds of the time. Results revealed significant differences in performance as a function of variable type, question format, and over time. We found few differences as a function of sample type, publication status, or jurisdiction. Although performance varied, a majority of lay respondents achieved “correct” consensus for as many as 11 of the 16 items included in this review.