Digital Detectives: Websleuthing Reduces Eyewitness Identification Accuracy in Police Lineups

Eyewitnesses to crimes sometimes search for a culprit on social media before viewing a police lineup, but it is not known whether this affects subsequent lineup identification accuracy. The present online study was conducted to address this. Two hundred and eighty-five participants viewed a mock crime video, and after a 15–20 min delay either (i) viewed a mock social media site including the culprit, (ii) viewed a mock social media site including a lookalike, or (iii) completed a filler task. A week later, participants made an identification from a photo lineup. It was predicted that searching for a culprit on social media containing the lookalike (rather than the culprit) would reduce lineup identification accuracy. There was a significant association between social media exposure and lineup accuracy for the Target Present lineup (30% more of the participants who saw the lookalike on social media failed to positively identify the culprit than participants in the other conditions), but for the Target Absent lineup (which also included the lookalike) there was no significant association with lineup identification accuracy. The results suggest that if an eyewitness sees a lookalike (where they are expecting to see the culprit) when conducting a self-directed search on social media, they are less likely to subsequently identify the culprit in the formal ID procedure.

Evidence-based policing in Australia: an examination of the appropriateness and transparency of lineup identification and investigative interviewing practices

Psychological research has been pivotal in influencing the way police forces globally approach and undertake criminal investigations. Increasing psychological research in recent years has led to the development of best-practice guidelines for conducting police investigations, across a number of key areas of criminal investigation. For example, procedures for creating and conducting lineups as recommended by the American Psychology-Law Society, and the UK-developed PEACE model for investigative interviewing, have both been of influence in Australia. However, the extent to which these evidence-based recommendations have been incorporated into policing practice within Australia is unclear. In this article, we conducted an exploratory review of publicly available policing documents within Australian states and territories, to determine the extent to which best practice lineup identification and investigative interviewing procedures have been adopted into police practice. The review revealed that for lineup identification procedures, many of the basic recommendations for conducting lineups were not incorporated into publicly available policing manuals. For investigative interviewing, it appeared on the surface that elements of the PEACE model were implemented within most Australian jurisdictions, albeit this was often not explicitly stated within policing documents. A key issue identified was a lack of (understandable) public transparency of policing procedure, as a number of Australian jurisdictions failed to have publicly available policing manuals or handbooks against which to evaluate their procedures. Therefore, we argue that there is a need for better collaboration between researchers and law enforcement in order to achieve evidence-based, transparent policing within Australia.

The Effect of Pre-Event Instructions on Eyewitness Identification Stage 1 Registered Report Manuscript

Research on eyewitness identification often involves exposing participants to a simulated crime and later testing memory using a lineup. We conducted a systematic review showing that pre-event instructions, instructions given before event exposure, are rarely reported and those that are reported vary in the extent to which they warn participants about the nature of event or tasks. At odds with the experience of actual witnesses, some studies use pre-event instructions explicitly warning participants of the upcoming crime and lineup task. Both the basic and applied literature provide reason to believe that pre-event instructions may impact eyewitness identification performance. In Experiment 1, we will test the effect of pre-event instructions on lineup identification decisions and confidence. Participants will receive non-specific pre-event instructions (i.e., “watch this video”) or eyewitness pre-event instructions (i.e., “watch this crime video, you’ll complete a line-up later”) and complete a culprit absent or present lineup. In Experiment 2, we will manipulate exposure duration and pre-event instructions to determine if pre-event instructions differentially impact high or low quality eyewitness events. If pre-event instructions impact eyewitness identification accuracy, then the findings of existing studies need to be considered in the context of their pre-event instructions and future work will be needed to determine how instructions interact with existing systems and estimator variables.

Factors That Can Interact with Familiarity

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.