Explore the vast range of titles available.

Police lineups are conducted with varying delays between the crime and the lineup. Crime-to-lineup delays may adversely affect the detection of the presence and absence of the culprit in the lineup and may potentially affect guessing-based selection. In the present study we examined how these processes change across four crime-to-lineup delays. Participants viewed a staged-crime video and then completed simultaneous photo lineups after no delay or after a delay of one day, one week or one month. The results showed a significant decline in the probability of culprit-presence detection. The form of the decline is best described by a power function with the most rapid decline occurring at short crime-to-lineup delays. Eyewitnesses did not compensate the decline in culprit-presence detection by increasing guessing-based selection, as demonstrated by the fact that the probability of guessing-based selection remained constant across crime-to-lineup delays. The findings underscore the critical importance of conducting lineups as soon as possible after a crime to maximize the probability of memory-based-culprit detection.

The primary argument for including large numbers of known-to-be innocent fillers in lineups is that guessing-based selections are dispersed among a large number of lineup members, leading to low innocent-suspect identification rates. However, a recent study using the two-high threshold eyewitness identification model has demonstrated advantages of smaller lineups at the level of the processes underlying the observable responses. Participants were more likely to detect the presence of the culprit and less likely to select lineup members based on guessing in smaller than in larger lineups. Nonetheless, at the level of observable responses, the rate of innocent-suspect identifications was higher in smaller compared to larger lineups due to the decreased dispersion of guessing-based selections among the lineup members. To address this issue, we combined smaller lineups with lineup instructions insinuating that the culprit was unlikely to be in the lineup. The goal was to achieve a particularly low rate of guessing-based selections. These lineups were compared to larger lineups with neutral instructions. In two experiments, culprit-presence detection occurred with a higher probability in smaller compared to larger lineups. Furthermore, instructions insinuating that the culprit was unlikely to be in the lineup reduced guessing-based selection compared to neutral instructions. At the level of observable responses, the innocent-suspect identification rate did not differ between smaller lineups with low-culprit-probability instructions and larger lineups with neutral instructions. The rate of culprit identifications was higher in smaller lineups with low-culprit-probability instructions than in larger lineups with neutral instructions.

This volume provides a tutorial review and evaluation of scientific research on the accuracy and reliability of eyewitness identification. The book starts with the perspective that there are a variety of conceptual and empirical problems with eyewitness identification as a form of forensic evidence, just as there are a variety of problems with other forms of forensic evidence. There is then an examination of the important results in the study of eyewitness memory and the implications of this research for psychological theory and for social and legal policy. The volume takes the perspective that research on eyewitness identification can be seen as the paradigmatic example of how psychological science can be successfully applied to real-world problems.

Identifying the Culprit: Assessing Eyewitness Identification makes the case that better data collection and research on eyewitness identification, new law enforcement training protocols, standardized procedures for administering line-ups, and improvements in the handling of eyewitness identification in court can increase the chances that accurate.

The U.S. legal system increasingly accepts the idea that the confidence expressed by an eyewitness who identified a suspect from a lineup provides little information as to the accuracy of that identification. There was a time when this pessimistic assessment was entirely reasonable because of the questionable eyewitness-identification procedures that police commonly employed. However, after more than 30 years of eyewitness-identification research, our understanding of how to properly conduct a lineup has evolved considerably, and the time seems ripe to ask how eyewitness confidence informs accuracy under more pristine testing conditions (e.g., initial, uncontaminated memory tests using fair lineups, with no lineup administrator influence, and with an immediate confidence statement). Under those conditions, mock-crime studies and police department field studies have consistently shown that, for adults, (a) confidence and accuracy are strongly related and (b) high-confidence suspect identifications are remarkably accurate. However, when certain non-pristine testing conditions prevail (e.g., when unfair lineups are used), the accuracy of even a high-confidence suspect ID is seriously compromised. Unfortunately, some jurisdictions have not yet made reforms that would create pristine testing conditions and, hence, our conclusions about the reliability of high-confidence identifications cannot yet be applied to those jurisdictions. However, understanding the information value of eyewitness confidence under pristine testing conditions can help the criminal justice system to simultaneously achieve both of its main objectives: to exonerate the innocent (by better appreciating that initial, low-confidence suspect identifications are error prone) and to convict the guilty (by better appreciating that initial, high-confidence suspect identifications are surprisingly accurate under proper testing conditions).

In eyewitness research the frequent use of video playback presented on a computer screen (i.e., 2D videos) in laboratory-based research is problematic due to the low realism of this method when presenting, for example, threatening (and non-threatening) first-person (and third-person) scenarios. However, in contrast to 2D videos, 360-degree videos presented in virtual reality (VR) presents the opportunity of achieving more realistic and immersive scenarios that might be better suited to mimic real-life incidents, as for example, in the case of a threatening first-person robbery. In the present study, we asked 37 participants to watch eight pre-recorded threatening or non-threatening 2D and VR videos, viewed from either a first- or third-person perspective. After each video, participants assessed the observed target's appearance and were then presented with either a target present (TP) or target absent (TA) six-person photograph line-up. We expected that VR would result in higher degrees of accuracy in both TP and TA line-ups compared with 2D and that the differences between manipulations would be more pronounced within VR compared with 2D. We found that TP (but not TA) accuracy was higher in 2D compared with VR videos (91 vs. 66%), that there was no main effect of perspective, and that threatening scenes increased TP (but not TA) accuracy compared to non-threatening scenes (86 vs. 70%). Furthermore, in VR (but not in 2D), threatening scenes increased TP (but not TA) accuracy compared with non-threatening scenes (85 vs. 40%). The results go against the expected increased accuracy in VR (vs. 2D) videos but support the notion that threatening (vs. non-threatening) scenes can increase identification accuracy in VR but not necessarily in 2D.

A typical police lineup contains a photo of one suspect (who is innocent in a target-absent lineup and guilty in a target-present lineup) plus photos of five or more fillers who are known to be innocent. To create a fair lineup in which the suspect does not stand out, two filler selection methods are commonly used. In the first, fillers are selected if they are similar in appearance to the suspect. In the second, fillers are selected if they possess facial features included in the witness’s description of the culprit (e.g., “20-y-old white male”). The police sometimes use a combination of the two methods by selecting description-matched fillers whose appearance is also similar to that of the suspect in the lineup. Decades of research on which approach is better remains unsettled. Here, we tested a counterintuitive prediction made by a formal model based on signal detection theory: From a pool of acceptable description-matched photos, selecting fillers whose appearance is otherwise dissimilar to the suspect should increase the hit rate without affecting the false-alarm rate (increasing discriminability). In Experiment 1, we confirmed this prediction using a standard mock-crime paradigm. In Experiment 2, the effect on discriminability was reversed (as also predicted by the model) when fillers were matched on similarity to the perpetrator in both target-present and target-absent lineups. These findings suggest that signal-detection theory offers a useful theoretical framework for understanding eyewitness identification decisions made from a police lineup.

Previous research has shown that cannabis intoxication may increase false memories, thereby affecting the validity of eyewitness testimony. Evidence-based investigative interview methods might counteract these cannabis-induced memory impairments. In this quasi-experimental study, we used the Sketch Reinstatement of Context Cognitive Interview (Sketch-CI) with cannabis-using and non-using participants, examining how the timing of intoxication affected eyewitness memory reports and identification. We tested four groups ( N  = 131): regular users intoxicated at both encoding and retrieval, regular users intoxicated only at retrieval, regular sober users, and sober non-users. During an online video call, participants viewed a mock crime video, were interviewed using the Sketch-CI and completed three target-absent lineups. The groups did not statistically differ for memory performance, measured by the number of correct and incorrect details, confabulations, recall accuracy, recall completeness, and identification performance. This suggests the potential usefulness of the Sketch-CI for interviewing cannabis-using eyewitnesses. However, stronger levels of subjective intoxication were associated with poorer memory performance, implicating that individual sensitivity to cannabis might determine real-life memory impairment. Participants intoxicated at encoding and retrieval also exhibited inflated confidence in lineup errors. Future studies could replicate these findings using additional retrieval methods and a control condition without external context reinstatement support.

Laboratory-based mock crime studies have often been interpreted to mean that (i) eyewitness confidence in an identification made from a lineup is a weak indicator of accuracy and (ii) sequential lineups are diagnostically superior to traditional simultaneous lineups. Largely as a result, juries are increasingly encouraged to disregard eyewitness confidence, and up to 30% of law enforcement agencies in the United States have adopted the sequential procedure. We conducted a field study of actual eyewitnesses who were assigned to simultaneous or sequential photo lineups in the Houston Police Department over a 1-y period. Identifications were made using a three-point confidence scale, and a signal detection model was used to analyze and interpret the results. Our findings suggest that (i) confidence in an eyewitness identification from a fair lineup is a highly reliable indicator of accuracy and (ii) if there is any difference in diagnostic accuracy between the two lineup formats, it likely favors the simultaneous procedure.

Eyewitness identification is a pivotal issue in applied research because, in practice, a correct identification can help to remove a dangerous criminal from society, but a false identification can lead to the erroneous conviction of an innocent suspect. Consequently, psychologists have tried to ascertain the best procedures for collecting identification evidence, evaluating them using measures based on the ratio of correct to false identification rates. Unfortunately, ratio-based measures are ambiguous because they change systematically as a function of a witness's willingness to choose. In other words, a measure thought to index discriminability is instead fully confounded with response bias. A better method involves constructing receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. Using ROC curves, researchers can trace out discriminability across levels of response bias for each procedure. We illustrate the shortcomings of ratiobased measures and demonstrate why ROC analysis is required. In recent studies, researchers comparing simultaneous and sequential lineup procedures using ROC analyses have provided no evidence for the sequential superiority effect and instead have shown that the simultaneous procedure may be diagnostically superior. It is not yet clear which lineup procedure will prove to be generally superior, but it is clear that ROC analysis is the only way to make that determination.