Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Eyewitness-identification studies have focused on the idea that unfair lineups (i.e., ones in which the police suspect stands out) make witnesses more willing to identify the police suspect. We examined whether unfair lineups also influence subjects’ ability to distinguish between innocent and guilty suspects and their ability to judge the accuracy of their identification. In a single experiment (N = 8,925), we compared three fair-lineup techniques used by the police with unfair lineups in which we did nothing to prevent distinctive suspects from standing out. Compared with the fair lineups, doing nothing not only increased subjects’ willingness to identify the suspect but also markedly impaired subjects’ ability to distinguish between innocent and guilty suspects. Accuracy was also reduced at every level of confidence. These results advance theory on witnesses’ identification performance and have important practical implications for how police should construct lineups when suspects have distinctive features.

Keywords

eyewitness memory lineup fairness distinctive features diagnostic feature detection open data

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Badham

S. P.

Wade

K. A.

Watts

H. J. E.

Woods

N. G.

Maylor

E. A.

(2013). Replicating distinctive facial features in lineups: Identification performance in young versus older adults. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20, 289–295. doi:10.3758/s13423-012-0339-2

Baron-Cohen

Wheelwright

Skinner

Martin

Clubley

(2001). The Autism Spectrum Quotient (AQ): Evidence from Asperger syndrome/high functioning autism, males and females, scientists and mathematicians. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 31, 5–17. doi:10.1023/A:1005653411471

Brewer

Burke

(2002). Effects of testimonial inconsistencies and eyewitness confidence on mock-juror judgments. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 353–364. doi:10.1023/A:1015380522722

Brewer

Keast

Sauer

J. D.

(2010). Children’s eyewitness identification performance: Effects of a Not Sure response option and accuracy motivation. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 15, 261–277. doi:10.1348/135532509X474822

Brewer

Wells

G. L.

(2006). The confidence-accuracy relationship in eyewitness identification: Effects of lineup instructions, foil similarity, and target-absent base rates. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 12, 11–30. doi:10.1037/1076-898X.12.1.11

Carlson

C. A.

Gronlund

S. D.

Clark

S. E.

(2008). Lineup composition, suspect position, and the sequential lineup advantage. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 14, 118–128. doi:10.1037/1076-898X.14.2.118

Chandler

C. C.

(1994). Studying related pictures can reduce accuracy, but increase confidence, in a modified recognition test. Memory & Cognition, 22, 273–280. doi:10.3758/BF03200854

Clark

S. E.

(2005). A re-examination of the effects of biased lineup instructions in eyewitness identification. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 575–604. doi:10.1007/s10979-005-7121-1

Clark

S. E.

(2012). Costs and benefits of eyewitness identification reform: Psychological science and public policy. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 238–259. doi:10.1177/1745691612439584

10.

Doob

A. N.

Kirshenbaum

H. M.

(1973). Bias in police lineups—partial remembering. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 1, 287–293.

11.

Fitzgerald

R. J.

Price

H. L.

Oriet

Charman

S. D.

(2013). The effect of suspect-filler similarity on eyewitness identification decisions: A meta-analysis. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 19, 151–164. doi:10.1037/a0030618

12.

Flowe

H. D.

Klatt

Colloff

M. F.

(2014). Selecting fillers on emotional appearance improves lineup identification accuracy. Law and Human Behavior, 38, 509–519. doi:10.1037/lhb0000101

13.

Gosling

S. D.

Rentfrow

P. J.

Swann

W. B.

Jr. (2003). A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 504–528. doi:10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00046-1

14.

Gronlund

S. D.

Carlson

C. A.

Neuschatz

J. S.

Goodsell

C. A.

Wetmore

S. A.

Wooten

Graham

(2012). Showups versus lineups: An evaluation using ROC analysis. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 1, 221–228. doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2012.09.003

15.

Gronlund

S. D.

Wixted

J. T.

Mickes

(2014). Evaluating eyewitness identification procedures using receiver operating characteristic analysis. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23, 3–10. doi:10.1177/0963721413498891

16.

Key

K. N.

Cash

D. K.

Neuschatz

J. S.

Price

J. L.

Wetmore

S. A.

Gronlund

S. D.

(2015). Age differences (or lack thereof) in discriminability for lineups and showups. Psychology, Crime & Law, 21, 871–889. doi:10.1080/1068316X.2015.1054387

17.

Lampinen

J. M.

(2016). ROC analyses in eyewitness identification research. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition. Advance online publication. doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2015.08.006

18.

Lindsay

D. S.

Read

J. D.

Sharma

(1998). Accuracy and confidence in person identification: The relationship is strong when witnessing conditions vary widely. Psychological Science, 9, 215–218. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00041

19.

Lindsay

R. C. L.

Wallbridge

Drennan

(1987). Do the clothes make the man? An exploration of the effect of lineup attire on eyewitness identification accuracy. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 19, 463–478. Abstract retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=116390

20.

MacLin

M. K.

MacLin

O. H.

Albrechtsen

J. S.

(2006). Using image manipulation to construct fair lineups: The case of the Buddy Holly glasses. Canadian Journal of Police and Security Services, 4, 1–16.

21.

Mansour

J. K.

Beaudry

J. L.

Kalmet

Bertrand

M. I.

Lindsay

R. C. L.

(in press). Evaluating lineup fairness: Variations across methods and measures. Law and Human Behavior.

22.

Marteau

Bekker

(1992). The development of a six-item short-form of the state scale of the Spielberger State–Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). British Journal of Psychology, 31, 301–306. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8260.1992.tb00997.x

23.

Mickes

(2015). Receiver operating characteristic analysis and confidence-accuracy characteristic analysis in investigations of system variables and estimator variables that affect eyewitness memory. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 4, 93–102. doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2015.01.003

24.

National Research Council. (2014). Identifying the culprit: Assessing eyewitness identification. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

25.

Palmer

M. A.

Brewer

Weber

Nagesh

(2013). The confidence-accuracy relationship for eyewitness identification decisions: Effects of exposure duration, retention interval, and divided attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 19, 55–71. doi:10.1037/a0031602

26.

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, Code D. (2011). Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/253831/pace-code-d-2011.pdf

27.

R Development Core Team. (2015). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (Version 3.2.0) [Computer software]. Retrieved from https://www.r-project.org/index.html

28.

Robin

Turck

Hainard

Tiberti

Lisacek

Sanchez

J. C.

Müller

(2011). pROC: An open-source package for R and S+ to analyze and compare ROC curves. BMC Bioinformatics, 12, 77–84. doi:10.1186/1471-2105-12-77

29.

RStudio Team. (2015). RStudio: Integrated development for R (Version 0.98.1103) [Computer software]. Retrieved from http://www.rstudio.com/

30.

Sauer

Brewer

Zweck

Weber

(2010). The effect of retention interval on the confidence-accuracy relationship for eyewitness identification. Law and Human Behavior, 34, 337–347. doi:10.1007/s10979-009-9192-x

31.

Steblay

N. K.

Dysart

J. E.

Wells

G. L.

(2011). Seventy-two tests of the sequential lineup superiority effect: A meta-analysis and policy discussion. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 17, 99–139. doi:10.1037/a0021650

32.

Technical Working Group for Eyewitness Evidence. (1999). Eyewitness evidence: A guide for law enforcement. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/178240.pdf

33.

Valentine

Heaton

(1999). An evaluation of the fairness of police line-ups and video identifications. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13, S59–S72. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199911)13:1+<S59::AID-ACP679>3.0.CO;2-Y

34.

Wells

G. L.

(1984). The psychology of lineup identifications. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 14, 89–103. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1984.tb02223.x

35.

Wells

G. L.

(1993). What do we know about eyewitness identification? American Psychologist, 48, 553–571. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.48.5.577

36.

Wells

G. L.

Leippe

M. R.

Ostrom

T. M.

(1979). Guidelines for empirically assessing the fairness of a lineup. Law and Human Behavior, 3, 285–293. doi:10.1007/BF01039807

37.

Wells

G. L.

Lindsay

R. C.

Ferguson

T. J.

(1979). Accuracy, confidence, and juror perceptions in eyewitness identification. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 440–448. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.64.4.440

38.

Wells

G. L.

Rydell

S. M.

Seelau

E. P.

(1993). The selection of distractors for eyewitness lineups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 835–844. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.78.5.835

39.

Wetmore

S. A.

Neuschatz

J. S.

Gronlund

S. D.

Wooten

Goodsell

C. A.

Carlson

C. A.

(2015). Effect of retention interval on showup and lineup performance. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 4, 8–14. doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2014.07.003

40.

Wixted

J. T.

Mickes

(2014). A signal-detection-based diagnostic-feature-detection model of eyewitness identification. Psychological Review, 121, 262–276. doi:10.1037/a0035940

41.

Wixted

J. T.

Mickes

(2015). ROC analysis measures objective discriminability for any eyewitness identification procedure. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 4, 329–334. doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2015.08.007

42.

Wogalter

M. S.

Malpass

R. S.

Mcquiston

D. E.

(2004). A national survey of US police on preparation and conduct of identification lineups. Psychology, Crime & Law, 10, 69–82. doi:10.1080/10683160410001641873

43.

Zarkadi

Wade

K. A.

Stewart

(2009). Creating fair lineups for suspects with distinctive features. Psychological Science, 20, 1448–1453. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02463.x

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.60 MB

0.44 MB

Unfair Lineups Make Witnesses More Likely to Confuse Innocent and Guilty Suspects

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material