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.

Future Directions for Research Examining the Notion of Familiarity and Its Impact on the Criminal Justice System

This chapter provides a summary of the goals of the book and offers a look to the future in eyewitness familiarity research. The chapter addresses why there has been limited research examining familiarity within an eyewitness context. Next, it describes the current state of the field in terms of studying familiarity through four themes: (1) the limited amount of research utilizing familiarity in an eyewitness context; (2) the importance of focusing on system variables, such as police practices and procedures, that may exacerbate errors in familiarity cases; (3) the importance of understanding the interaction between familiarity and estimator variables that may increase or decrease eyewitness accuracy; and (4) the influence of familiarity claims in the courtroom. This chapter concludes with a discussion of the importance of studying familiarity in terms of the criminal justice system.

Factors That Can Interact with Familiarity

This chapter examines the role of estimator variables within eyewitness memory. Estimator variables are factors that occur during the time of the crime that may affect eyewitness identification accuracy. Various estimator variables are discussed, in conjunction with familiarity, to highlight how eyewitness recall and identification may be impacted. The chapter first discusses witness variables such as the role of the eyewitness (i.e., whether the witness is a bystander or a victim), the role of arousal during the time of the crime, the age of the witness, the cross-race effect, and personality variables that may impact identification accuracy. The chapter then discusses the challenges the criminal justice system faces when determining the impact of estimator variables on eyewitness identification accuracy and the need to consider these variables in conjunction with familiarity.

How Persuasive Is an Eyewitness Who Is Familiar with the Defendant?

This chapter focuses on familiarity in the courtroom. Specifically, this chapter describes how familiarity between an eyewitness and a defendant affects juror decision-making in terms of perceptions of guilt and credibility of both the eyewitness and the defendant. The chapter describes how familiarity has been operationalized in the juror decision-making literature and discusses various definitions of familiarity, such as exposure duration, number of exposures, and the context of the relationship between the eyewitness and defendant. Research examining how familiarity influences jurors’ judgments is summarized. The chapter also discusses the association between familiarity and eyewitness confidence and its impact on jurors. The chapter concludes by describing familiarity within the context of real court cases, the use of expert testimony, and how familiarity may have affected judges’ rulings.

Considering Familiarity as a Dependent Variable

This chapter discusses familiarity as a dependent variable, specifically focusing on memory errors that may occur when an eyewitness makes a familiarity judgment after witnessing a crime. The chapter highlights the link between familiarity memory errors and wrongful conviction. The chapter describes various factors within the justice system that may lead to familiarity errors, such as the concept of the mugshot commitment effect, mere prior exposure effects, and the presence of a bystander during the commission of the crime. Next, the chapter describes why familiarity errors occur and how they may be prevented by considering issues with source monitoring, unconscious transference, and stereotyping. Finally, the chapter describes other ways in which familiarity may lead to a wrongful conviction, such as alibis from familiar others.

Eyewitness Descriptions and Identifications of Familiar Perpetrators

This chapter discusses the role of an eyewitness, the importance of eyewitness testimony, and the different identification decisions that an eyewitness can make when the police have apprehended the guilty suspect or an innocent suspect of the crime in question. The chapter then discusses eyewitness recall of strangers, highlighting recent research focusing on an eyewitnesses’ ability to recall details about a perpetrator who is familiar to them. Furthermore, this chapter provides a description of other situations within the legal system in which familiarity recall may be required (e.g., the recall of familiar and unfamiliar events). The chapter also discusses familiarity in relation to how it may impact eyewitness identification accuracy by describing recent research that has utilized an eyewitness paradigm.

Theoretical Underpinnings

This chapter discusses familiarity from a social psychological lens. The chapter provides a basis in theory for beginning to understand the concept of familiarity, how it may be studied, and factors that impact familiarity outside of an eyewitness-specific context. For example, it takes a social psychological perspective on how familiarity is developed through interactions, proximity, similarity, and inclusive pronouns. In addition, the chapter discusses how familiarity can play a role in both the development and maintenance of stereotypes. It discusses specific stereotypes, such as gender stereotypes/bias, stereotypical behaviors, and stereotypes in general. Last, the chapter applies these social psychological perspectives on familiarity when it is applied to the legal system. It discusses the cross-race effect, in-groups and out-groups, and Stockholm syndrome.

Defining Familiarity and Overview of Concepts

This chapter discusses the familiarity construct, current definitions of familiarity in the field, as well as real-life cases in which the defendant was considered familiar to the eyewitness/victim. The current dictionary definition of familiarity is discussed in comparison to how people subjectively perceive familiarity. Differing definitions and considerations of how familiarity may be operationalized are considered and discussed thoroughly in this chapter—for example, subjective feelings of familiarity, prior exposure to an individual, length of exposure, celebrity status and feelings of familiarity, yearbooks, personal interaction and its role in familiarity, and revealing personal information about one’s self. The chapter concludes with summaries of real-life cases involving a familiar-stranger and provides a suggestion for why familiarity has been ignored in the eyewitness literature.

Theoretical Underpinnings

This chapter discusses familiarity from a cognitive psychological lens. For example, it examines cognitive theories of familiarity. It discusses the discrepancy-attribution hypothesis, heuristics, and valence and how each of these can lead to a sense of familiarity. The chapter also discusses face processing and face recognition. Typically, people process faces either holistically or featurally; this chapter describes how face familiarity is either enhanced or hindered by the way in which faces are processed. Given the understanding of how familiarity impacts people’s ability to process and recognize a face, the chapter discusses how familiarity also influences facial recognition irrespective of the eyewitness paradigm. The chapter then discusses research concerning exposure duration and remember–know–guess and familiarity. It concludes with a discussion of face recognition in a legal context.