Amy-May Leach

Sequential lineup presentation: Patterns and policy

Sequential lineups were offered as an alternative to the traditional simultaneous lineup. Sequential lineups reduce incorrect lineup selections; however, the accompanying loss of correct identifications has resulted in controversy regarding adoption of the technique. We discuss the procedure and research relevant to (1) the pattern of results found using sequential versus simultaneous lineups; (2) reasons (theory) for differences in witness responses; (3) two methodological issues; and (4) implications for policy decisions regarding the adoption of sequential lineups.

The Reliability of Lie Detection Performance

We examined whether individuals’ ability to detect deception remained stable over time. In two sessions, held one week apart, university students viewed video clips of individuals and attempted to differentiate between the lie-tellers and truth-tellers. Overall, participants had difficulty detecting all types of deception. When viewing children answering yes–no questions about a transgression (Experiments 1 and 5), participants’ performance was highly reliable. However, rating adults who provided truthful or fabricated accounts did not produce a significant alternate forms correlation (Experiment 2). This lack of reliability was not due to the types of deceivers (i.e., children versus adults) or interviews (i.e., closed-ended questions versus extended accounts) (Experiment 3). Finally, the type of deceptive scenario (naturalistic vs. experimentally-manipulated) could not account for differences in reliability (Experiment 4). Theoretical and legal implications are discussed.

Beyond sequential presentation: Misconceptions and misrepresentations of sequential lineups

Malpass, Tredoux, and McQuiston-Surrett (2009), hereinafter ‘MTM’, provide comments on the sequential lineup, research comparing sequential and simultaneous lineups, and the policy implications of this literature. We will comment on points of agreement and disagreement. First, we agree with the following: (1) Peer review, publication of results, and diversity of methods, procedures, and subject populations significantly contribute to the value of research as a basis both for psychological understanding and for recommended policy. (2) Absence of error, omission, and confounds make interpretation and application easier. These conclusions are not revolutionary but seem to occupy a great deal of MTM’s thinking. We disagree with many things that MTM have to say but have room here only to address a few.

Stigma and wrongful conviction: all exonerees are not perceived equal

Exonerees report experiencing stigma post-incarceration. This research examined whether particular exonerees are stigmatized more than others. Participants read an article about a fictional exoneree who falsely confessed, was misidentified by an eyewitness, or was implicated by a jailhouse snitch, and then reported their perceptions. Participants in the control condition did not read an article. An exoneree who falsely confessed was more likely to be perceived as actually guilty of the crime, less competent, and less warm than the other exonerees, but participants did not express more anger or less pity toward any particular exoneree. Participants did express more pity when rating exonerees than in the control condition, but this did not translate into a greater willingness to offer the exonerees more governmental assistance (e.g., job training, psychological counseling). Exonerees who falsely confess were stigmatized more than other exonerees. The implications for the post-incarceration experiences of exonerees who falsely confess are discussed.

Investigating deception in second language speakers: interviewee and assessor perspectives

Method. For the first experiment, 52 participants told the truth or lied about their identity during a mock border control interview. All of the participants were interviewed in English, for half of the sample this was their native language, and for the other half of the sample English was not their native tongue. Post-interview, all participants completed a self-report questionnaire relating to their perceptions of their interview experience. For the second experiment, 128 participants evaluated the credibility of interviewees from the first experiment. The modality of presentation of interview clips was varied and included ‘Visual and Audio’, ‘Visual Only’, ‘Audio Only’, and ‘Transcript Only’.