Pre-identification confidence is related to eyewitness lineup identification accuracy across heterogeneous encoding conditions.

OBJECTIVE: Eyewitness research has generally failed to show an association between eyewitnesses' pre-identification confidence in their ability to identify the perpetrator from a lineup and their subsequent identification accuracy. However, this observed lack of an association may be an artifact of methodologies in which witnesses experienced homogenous encoding conditions, which would tend to restrict the range of witnesses' confidence, thereby effectively weakening its relationship with subsequent identification accuracy. The current study examined whether pre-ID confidence is associated with subsequent lineup identification accuracy when there is variability in encoding conditions across witnesses. HYPOTHESES: We hypothesized (a) that there would be a significant relationship between pre-ID confidence and subsequent lineup identification accuracy across heterogeneous encoding conditions as assessed via calibration and CAC analysis; and (b) that witnesses' self-reports regarding their underlying memory strength would be at least as predictive of their subsequent lineup identification accuracy as pre-ID confidence. METHOD: Participant-witnesses (n = 203, Mage = 21.5; 71% Female; 67% Hispanic and/or Latino/a) viewed a mock crime video under varying encoding conditions and were asked to make both a pre-ID confidence assessment and memory strength assessment. After a brief filler task, participants made a lineup identification decision and made a post-ID confidence judgment. This process was then repeated 7 more times (producing 8 identification decisions per participant). RESULTS: Calibration analyses indicated that pre-identification confidence was moderately calibrated with subsequent lineup identification accuracy across witnesses with heterogeneous encoding conditions. Furthermore, confidence-accuracy characteristic curves indicated that memory strength measures obtained from the witness immediately after the witnessed event were also predictive of subsequent identification accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: Pre-ID confidence and other memory strength judgments are in fact predictive of identification accuracy under the ecologically valid circumstance that there is variability in encoding across witnesses. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Showup identification decisions for multiple perpetrator crimes: Testing for sequential dependencies.

Research in perception and recognition demonstrates that a current decision (i) can be influenced by previous ones (i-j), meaning that subsequent responses are not always independent. Experiments 1 and 2 tested whether initial showup identification decisions impact choosing behavior for subsequent showup identification responses. Participants watched a mock crime film involving three perpetrators and later made three showup identification decisions, one showup for each perpetrator. Across both experiments, evidence for sequential dependencies for choosing behavior was not consistently predictable. In Experiment 1, responses on the third, target-present showup assimilated towards previous choosing. In Experiment 2, responses on the second showup contrasted previous choosing regardless of target-presence. Experiment 3 examined whether differences in number of test trials in the eyewitness (vs. basic recognition) paradigm could account for the absence of hypothesized ability to predict patterns of sequential dependencies in Experiments 1 and 2. Sequential dependencies were detected in recognition decisions over many trials, including recognition for faces: the probability of a yes response on the current trial increased if the previous response was also yes (vs. no). However, choosing behavior on previous trials did not predict individual recognition decisions on the current trial. Thus, while sequential dependencies did arise to some extent, results suggest that the integrity of identification and recognition decisions are not likely to be impacted by making multiple decisions in a row.

Effects of cannabis on eyewitness memory: A field study.

Eyewitnesses to crimes are regularly under the influence of drugs, such as cannabis. Yet there is very little research on how the use of cannabis affects eyewitness memory. In the present study, we assessed the effects of cannabis on eyewitness recall and lineup identification performance in a field setting. One hundred twenty visitors of coffee shops in Amsterdam viewed a videotaped criminal event, were interviewed about the event, and viewed a target-present or target-absent lineup. Witnesses under the influence of cannabis remembered significantly fewer correct details about the witnessed event than did sober witnesses, with no difference in incorrect recall. Cannabis use was not significantly associated with lineup identification performance, but intoxicated witnesses were significantly better at judging whether their lineup identification was accurate. Theoretical and practical implications of the findings are discussed.

The (Un)reliability of Alibi Corroborators: Failure to Recognize Faces of Briefly Encountered Strangers Puts Innocent Suspects at Risk.

Some innocent suspects rely on the memory of strangers to corroborate their alibis. However, no research has examined whether such potential alibi corroborators can accurately recognize an innocent suspect with whom they previously interacted. We developed a novel alibi corroboration paradigm in which undergraduate students (representing innocent suspects who would later provide an alibi) interacted with naïve university employees (representing potential alibi corroborators). Each student briefly interacted with a different naïve university employee (n = 60), and were also each yoked to a different employee with whom they did not interact (n = 60). Employees were presented 24 hours later with either a single photograph of the student or a six-person array containing a photograph of the student and were asked if they recognized anyone. The majority of employees failed to make a correct recognition of the student. False recognitions, however, were rare. Students exhibited overconfidence that they would be recognized. Findings imply that innocent suspects who rely on strangers to corroborate their alibis may be at risk. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Blind sequential lineup administration reduces both false identifications and confidence in those false identifications.

One of the most recommended procedures proposed by eyewitness experts is the use of double-blind lineups, in which the administrator does not know the identity of the suspect in the lineup. But despite the near universality of this recommendation, there is surprisingly little empirical research to support the claim that nonblind administration inflates false identifications. What little research has been conducted has shown conflicting findings with regard to the conditions under which nonblind administration affects false identifications, as well as its effects on witness confidence. The current study attempts to elucidate this effect. Student-participants (n = 312) were randomly assigned to play the role of either a lineup administrator (who were either told the identity of the suspect in the lineup or not) or a mock crime witness. Following unbiased instructions, administrators presented either a target-present or target-absent sequential lineup to the witness while being surreptitiously videorecorded. Nonblind administration significantly inflated false, but not correct, identifications, and significantly inflated witness confidence in those false identifications. Video recordings indicated that nonblind administrators were significantly more likely than blind administrators to smile (a) while the witness was viewing a photograph of the suspect, and (b) after a suspect identification. Results provide stronger support for the use of blind lineup administration by broadening the conditions under which nonblind administration is shown to inflate false identifications. Possible reconciliations for conflicting findings in the literature are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record

Appearance-change instruction effects on eyewitness lineup identification accuracy are not moderated by amount of appearance change.

Instructing witnesses that a criminal may have changed appearance prior to showing them a lineup has been shown to increase false identifications without increasing correct identifications (S. D. Charman & G. L. Wells, 2007, Is the appearance-change instruction a good idea? Law and Human Behavior, Vol. 31, pp. 3-22). However, the generalizability of the effects of this appearance-change instruction (ACI) is unknown, and there are reasons to believe that the instruction's effects may be moderated by the amount of appearance change the criminal has actually undergone. The current study tested this hypothesis. Undergraduate students (N = 315) were exposed to a series of target faces and lineups, some of which contained the target and some of which did not, and made identification decisions. Half of the participants received a standard ACI prior to each lineup; the other half did not. The targets varied with respect to the amount to which their appearance had changed. Results indicated that the ACI inflated false identifications without inflating correct identifications, and that these effects did not depend on the amount of appearance change the target had undergone. Current recommendations to administer the ACI seem to be unfounded and may be harmful to the reliability of identification evidence.

The dud effect: adding highly dissimilar fillers increases confidence in lineup identifications.

Recent research in decision-making has demonstrated the "dud-alternative effect"--the tendency to become more confident that a chosen response option is correct if it is surrounded by implausible response options (Windschitl & Chambers, J Exp Psychol 30:198-215, 2004). This finding may be applicable to a lineup task: The presence of duds (i.e., highly dissimilar fillers) may increase a witness's confidence that an identified (non-dud) lineup member is the criminal. Four studies (N = 665) demonstrate that the mere presence of highly dissimilar fillers inflates witnesses' confidence in a mistaken identification (Studies 1-4), provides evidence that this confidence inflation is due to the duds inflating the perceived similarity of the other lineup members to the criminal (Studies 2, 3), and delineates some conditions under which the effect holds (Studies 3, 4). The addition of highly dissimilar lineup members, far from being inert, as is often implicitly assumed, can bias witnesses' confidence reports.

The selective cue integration framework: a theory of postidentification witness confidence assessment.

The current manuscript proposes a theory of how witnesses assess their confidence following a lineup identification, called the selective cue integration framework (SCIF). Drawing from past research on the postidentification feedback effect, the SCIF details a three-stage process of confidence assessment that is based largely on a conceptualization of feedback-produced confidence inflation as an attitude change phenomenon. According to the SCIF, when asked to assess their confidence, witnesses assess the strength of their internal accuracy cues (assessment stage). If weak, witnesses look specifically for external accuracy cues that can justify their identification decision (search stage). Finally, these justifying external cues are submitted to a credibility check (evaluation stage); if no credibility-undermining information is uncovered, they become integrated into one's confidence assessment. Three studies used college students as mock-witnesses to test predictions derived from the SCIF. In study 1a, lineup identification confidence was unaffected by disconfirming feedback unless that statement recanted previously administered confirming feedback, suggesting the existence of different stages in the confidence assessment process. Study 1b demonstrated that the effects of recanted feedback depend only on a discrediting of the feedback itself, and not on the discrediting of the identification. Study 2 demonstrated the generality of the SCIF by showing its predictive ability within a novel and methodologically improved postidentification cowitness feedback paradigm. Results across all three studies supported the SCIF as a theoretical framework for witness confidence assessment, suggest a new means of eliminating the feedback effect, and unite postidentification feedback and cowitness phenomena under a common theoretical umbrella.

Exploring the diagnostic utility of facial composites: beliefs of guilt can bias perceived similarity between composite and suspect.

Facial composite research has generally focused on the investigative utility of composites-using composites to find suspects. However, almost no work has examined the diagnostic utility of facial composites-the extent to which composites can be used as evidence against a suspect. For example, detectives and jurors may use the perceived similarity of a suspect to a composite as evidence to determine the likelihood of a suspect's guilt. However, research in social cognition and models of cognitive coherence suggest that these similarity judgments may be biased by evaluators' preexisting beliefs of guilt. Two studies examined how preexisting beliefs of guilt influence similarity ratings between a suspect and a facial composite. Study 1 (n = 93) demonstrated that mock-investigators' beliefs in a suspect's guilt inflated their subsequent similarity ratings. Study 2 (n = 49) demonstrated that mock-jurors' beliefs in a defendant's guilt predicted their similarity ratings. These findings highlight a problem of using facial composites as evidence against a suspect, and demonstrate the malleability of similarity judgments.

Can eyewitnesses correct for external influences on their lineup identifications? The actual/counterfactual assessment paradigm.

Real-world eyewitnesses are often asked whether their lineup responses were affected by various external influences, but it is unknown whether they can accurately answer these types of questions. The witness-report-of-influence mental-correction model is proposed to explain witnesses' reports of influence. Two experiments used a new paradigm (the actual/counterfactual paradigm) to examine eyewitnesses' abilities to report accurately on the influence of lineup manipulations. Eyewitnesses were administered either confirming feedback or no feedback (Experiment 1, n = 103), or a cautionary instruction or no cautionary instruction (Experiment 2, n = 114). Eyewitnesses then gave actual responses (retrospective confidence, view, and attention measures in Experiment 1; identification decision in Experiment 2) as well as counterfactual responses stating how they would have responded in the alternative condition. Results across both studies showed an asymmetric estimation of influence pattern: Eyewitnesses who received an influencing manipulation estimated significantly less of a change in their responses than eyewitnesses who did not receive an influencing manipulation. A 48-hr delay between actual and counterfactual responses did not moderate any effects. Results are explained by witnesses' implicit theories of influence.

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.

Building face composites can harm lineup identification performance.

Face composite programs permit eyewitnesses to build likenesses of target faces by selecting facial features and combining them into an intact face. Research has shown that these composites are generally poor likenesses of the target face. Two experiments tested the proposition that this composite-building process could harm the builder's memory for the face. In Experiment 1 (n = 150), the authors used 50 different faces and found that the building of a composite reduced the chances that the person could later identify the original face from a lineup when compared with no composite control conditions or with yoked composite-exposure control conditions. In Experiment 2 (n = 200), the authors found that this effect generalized to a simulated-crime video, but mistaken identifications from target-absent lineups were not inflated by composite building.

Distorted retrospective eyewitness reports as functions of feedback and delay.

Participant-witnesses viewed a crime video and attempted to identify the culprit from a culprit-absent lineup. The 253 mistaken-identification eyewitnesses were randomly given confirming, disconfirming, or no feedback regarding their identifications. Feedback was immediate or delayed 48 hr, and measures were immediate or delayed 48 hr. Confirming, but not disconfirming, feedback led to distortions of eyewitnesses' recalled confidence, amount of attention paid during witnessing, goodness of view, ability to make out facial details, length of time to identification, and other measures related to the witnessing experience. Unexpectedly, neither delaying the measures nor delaying feedback for 48 hr moderated these effects. The results underscore the need for double-blind lineups and neutral assessments of eyewitnesses' certainty and other judgments prior to feedback.