Testing a new lineup procedure with children: The elimination with wildcard

2020 ◽  
Vol 69 ◽  
pp. 101161
Author(s):  
Lauren E. Thompson ◽  
Joanna Pozzulo ◽  
Keltie J. Pratt ◽  
Chelsea L. Sheahan ◽  
Bailey M. Fraser ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lineup Procedure

Factors That Can Interact with Familiarity

2019 ◽  
pp. 55-76
Author(s):  
Joanna Pozzulo
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Recognition Memory ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Eyewitness Confidence ◽  
Recall Memory ◽  
Unconscious Transference ◽  
Lineup Procedures ◽  
Lineup Identification ◽  
Lineup Procedure ◽  
System Variables

This chapter discusses system variables that are under the control of the criminal justice system and can be manipulated after the crime has occurred, such as the type of lineup procedure shown to the eyewitness. The chapter first discusses recall memory and the different interviewing protocols and how these may interact with familiarity to influence an eyewitness’ memory of the perpetrator as well as the environment and event. Next, the chapter focuses on recognition memory, specifically lineup identification. The different lineup procedures used to collect eyewitness evidence are discussed, in addition to how each procedure may promote higher rates of accuracy and eyewitness confidence when a familiar-stranger is the perpetrator. Last, the chapter discusses unconscious transference and the commitment effect.

scholarly journals Designing police lineups to maximize memory performance

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Travis Morgan Seale-Carlisle ◽  
Stacy Ann Wetmore ◽  
Heather D Flowe ◽  
Laura Mickes
Keyword(s):  
Memory Performance ◽  
Value Added ◽  
Simultaneous Presentation ◽  
Diagnostic Value ◽  
Superior Performance ◽  
Sequential Presentation ◽  
The Us ◽  
Simultaneous Lineup ◽  
Lineup Procedures ◽  
Lineup Procedure

How can lineups be designed to elicit the best achievable memory performance? One step toward that goal is to compare lineup procedures. In a recent comparison of US and UK lineup procedures, discriminability and reliability was better when memory was tested using the US procedure. However, because there are so many differences between the procedures, it is unclear what explains this superior performance. The main goal of the current research is therefore to systematically isolate the differences between the US and UK lineups to determine their effects on discriminability and reliability. In five experiments, we compared (1) presentation format: simultaneous vs. sequential; (2) stimulus format: photos vs. videos; (3) number of views: 1-lap vs. 2-lap vs. choice in both video and photo lineups; and (4) lineup size: 6- versus 9-lineup members. Most of the comparisons did not show appreciable differences, but one comparison did: simultaneous presentation yielded better discriminability than sequential presentation. If the results replicate, then policymakers should recommend using a simultaneous lineup procedure. Moreover, consistent with previous research, identifications made with high confidence were higher in reliability than identifications made with low confidence. Thus, official lineup protocols should require collecting confidence because of the diagnostic value added.

scholarly journals Eyewitness Science and the Call for Double-Blind Lineup Administration

2013 ◽  
Vol 2013 ◽  
pp. 1-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dario N. Rodriguez ◽  
Melissa A. Berry
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Eyewitness Identification ◽  
The United States ◽  
Expectancy Effects ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Identification Confidence ◽  
Lineup Procedures ◽  
Lineup Procedure ◽  
Procedural Recommendation

For several decades, social scientists have investigated variables that can influence the accuracy of eyewitnesses’ identifications. This research has been fruitful and led to many recommendations to improve lineup procedures. Arguably, the most crucial reform social scientists advocate is double-blind lineup administration: lineups should be administered by a person who does not know the identity of the suspect. In this paper, we briefly review the classic research on expectancy effects that underlies this procedural recommendation. Then, we discuss the eyewitness research, illustrating three routes by which lineup administrators’ expectations can bias eyewitness identification evidence: effects on eyewitnesses’ identification decisions, effects on eyewitnesses’ identification confidence, and effects on administrator records of the lineup procedure. Finally, we discuss the extent to which double-blind lineup administration has been adopted among police jurisdictions in the United States and address common concerns about implementing a double-blind standard.

scholarly journals Distinguishing Between Investigator Discriminability and Eyewitness Discriminability: A Method for Creating Full Receiver Operating Characteristic Curves of Lineup Identification Performance

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 589-607
Author(s):  
Andrew M. Smith ◽  
Yueran Yang ◽  
Gary L. Wells
Keyword(s):  
Signal Detection ◽  
Receiver Operating Characteristic ◽  
Signal Detection Theory ◽  
Operating Characteristic ◽  
Detection Theory ◽  
Conceptual Frameworks ◽  
Characteristic Curves ◽  
Receiver Operating Characteristic Curves ◽  
Lineup Procedure ◽  
Receiver Operating

The conceptual frameworks provided by both the lineups-as-experiments analogy and signal detection theory have proven important to understanding how eyewitness lineups work. The lineups-as-experiments analogy proposes that when investigators use a lineup procedure, they are acting as experimenters and should therefore follow the same tried-and-true procedures that experimenters follow when executing an experiment. Signal detection theory offers a framework for distinguishing between factors that improve the trade-off between culprit and innocent-suspect identifications and factors that affect the frequency of suspect identifications. We integrate these two conceptual frameworks. We argue that an eyewitness lineup procedure is characterized by two simultaneous signal detection tasks. On one hand, the witness is tasked with determining whether the culprit is present in the lineup and identifying that person. On the other hand, the investigator knows which lineup member is the suspect and which lineup members are known-innocent fillers and is therefore tasked only with determining whether the suspect is the culprit. The investigator uses the witness’s identification decision and associated level of confidence to decide whether the suspect is the culprit. We leverage this realization to demonstrate a method for creating full receiver operating characteristic curves for eyewitness lineup procedures.

Can a Lineup Procedure Designed for Child Witnesses Work for Adults? Comparing Simultaneous, Sequential, and Elimination Lineup Procedures

2008 ◽  
Vol 38 (9) ◽  
pp. 2195-2209 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joanna D. Pozzulo ◽  
Julie Dempsey ◽  
Shevaun Corey ◽  
Alberta Girardi ◽  
Alex Lawandi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Child Witnesses ◽  
Lineup Procedures ◽  
Lineup Procedure

Double-blind photo lineups using actual eyewitnesses: An experimental test of a sequential versus simultaneous lineup procedure.

2015 ◽  
Vol 39 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-14 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gary L. Wells ◽  
Nancy K. Steblay ◽  
Jennifer E. Dysart
Keyword(s):  
Experimental Test ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Simultaneous Lineup ◽  
Lineup Procedure

scholarly journals Metacognitive Control and Lineup Instructions: Asking eyewitnesses to recollect reduces false identification

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicola Guerin ◽  
Nathan Weber ◽  
Ruth Horry
Keyword(s):  
Process Model ◽  
Eyewitness Identification ◽  
Dual Process ◽  
Identification Accuracy ◽  
Metacognitive Control ◽  
Decision Confidence ◽  
Delayed Choice ◽  
Simultaneous Lineup ◽  
Lineup Procedures ◽  
Lineup Procedure

Little theoretically-informed research investigates how non-traditional lineup tasks or metacognitive instructions might improve eyewitness identification accuracy. We used a continuous dual-process model of recognition to explain familiarity-based identification errors and develop a modified lineup procedure that increased discriminability. In four studies using a multiple lineup paradigm we compared identification performance between lineup procedures featuring differing decision types (standard simultaneous, delayed-choice, elimination) and instructions (standard, metacognitive). Metacognitive instructions about how to better evaluate memory quality improved discriminability in delayed-choice but not standard or elimination lineups. With modified simultaneous lineup procedures, metacognitive instructions could potentially enable participants to use recollection more effectively and increase accuracy even when memory is poor. While immediate post-decision confidence is a good predictor of identification accuracy, lineup modifications that improve eyewitness memory use could provide more diagnostic evidence of probable guilt across a wider range of decisions. We discuss implications for lineup theory and design.

scholarly journals Active exploration of faces in police lineups increases discrimination accuracy

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melissa Fay Colloff ◽  
Heather D Flowe ◽  
Harriet M J Smith ◽  
Travis Morgan Seale-Carlisle ◽  
Christian A. Meissner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Basic Science ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Policy Issue ◽  
Discrimination Accuracy ◽  
Race Bias ◽  
The World ◽  
Police Lineup ◽  
Lineup Procedure ◽  
Eyewitness Identifications ◽  
Active Exploration

Eyewitness identifications play a key role in the justice system, but eyewitnesses make errors, often with profound consequences. Errors are more likely when the witness is of a different race to the suspect, due to a phenomenon called the Own Race Bias (ORB). ORB is characterized as an encoding-based deficit, but has been predominantly tested using static photographs of people facing the camera. We used findings from basic science and innovative technologies to develop and test whether a novel interactive lineup procedure, wherein witnesses can rotate and dynamically view the lineup faces from different angles, improves witness discrimination accuracy and attenuates the ORB, compared to the most widely used procedure in laboratories and police forces around the world—the static frontal-pose photo lineup. No novel procedure has previously been shown to improve witness discrimination accuracy. In Experiment 1, participants (N=220) identified own-race or other-race culprits from sequentially presented interactive lineups or static frontal-pose photo lineups. In Experiment 2, participants (N=8,507) identified own-race or other-race culprits from interactive lineups that were either presented sequentially, simultaneously wherein the faces could be moved independently, or simultaneously wherein the faces moved jointly into the same angle. Interactive lineups enhanced witnesses’ discriminability compared to static lineups, especially when they were presented simultaneously, for both own-race and other-race identifications. Our findings suggest that ORB is an encoding-based phenomenon, and exemplify how basic science can be used to address the important applied policy issue on how best to conduct a police lineup and reduce eyewitness errors.

The elimination-plus lineup: Testing a modified lineup procedure with confidence

2017 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 294-306 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emily Pica ◽  
Joanna Pozzulo
Keyword(s):  
Lineup Procedure
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document