Ryan J. Fitzgerald

Eyewitness identification across the life span: A meta-analysis of age differences.

Lineup identifications are often a critical component of criminal investigations. Over the past 35 years, researchers have been conducting empirical studies to assess the impact of witness age on identification accuracy. A previous meta-analysis indicated that children are less likely than adults to correctly reject a lineup that does not contain the culprit, but children 5 years and older are as likely as adults to make a correct identification if the culprit is in the lineup (Pozzulo & Lindsay, 1998). We report an updated meta-analysis of age differences in eyewitness identification, summarizing data from 20,244 participants across 91 studies. Contrary to extant reviews, we adopt a life span approach and examine witnesses from early childhood to late adulthood. Childrens increased tendency to erroneously select a culprit-absent lineup member was replicated. Children were also less likely than young adults to correctly identify the culprit. Group data from culprit-absent and culprit-present lineups were used to produce signal detection measures, which indicated young adults were better able than children to discriminate between guilty and innocent suspects. A strikingly similar pattern emerged for older adults, who had even stronger deficits in discriminability than children, relative to adults. Although identifications by young adults were the most reliable, identifications by all witnesses had probative value.

Change detection inflates confidence on a subsequent recognition task

A face viewed under good encoding conditions is more likely to be remembered than a face viewed under poor encoding conditions. In four experiments we investigated how encoding conditions affected confidence in recognising faces from line-ups. Participants performed a change detection task followed by a recognition task and then rated how confident they were in their recognition accuracy. In the first two experiments the same faces were repeated across trials. In the final two experiments novel faces were used on each trial. Target-present and target-absent line-ups were utilised. In each experiment participants had greater recognition confidence after change detection than after change blindness. The finding that change detection inflates confidence, even for inaccurate recognitions, indicates recognition certainty can be a product of perceived encoding conditions rather than authentic memory strength.

Suspect filler similarity in eyewitness lineups: a literature review and a novel methodology

Eyewitness lineups typically contain a suspect (guilty or innocent) and fillers (known innocents). The degree to which fillers should resemble the suspect is a complex issue that has yet to be resolved. Previously, researchers have voiced concern that eyewitnesses would be unable to identify their target from a lineup containing highly similar fillers; however, our literature review suggests highly similar fillers have only rarely been shown to have this effect. To further examine the effect of highly similar fillers on lineup responses, we used morphing software to create fillers of moderately high and very high similarity to the suspect. When the culprit was in the lineup, a higher correct identification rate was observed in moderately high similarity lineups than in very high similarity lineups. When the culprit was absent, similarity did not yield a significant effect on innocent suspect misidentification rates. However, the correct rejection rate in the moderately high similarity lineup was 20% higher than in the very high similarity lineup. When choosing rates were controlled by calculating identification probabilities for only those who made a selection from the lineup, culprit identification rates as well as innocent suspect misidentification rates were significantly higher in the moderately high similarity lineup than in the very high similarity lineup. Thus, very high similarity fillers yielded costs and benefits. Although our research suggests that selecting the most similar fillers available may adversely affect correct identification rates, we recommend additional research using fillers obtained from police databases to corroborate our findings.

The single lineup paradigm: A new way to manipulate target presence in eyewitness identification experiments.

The suspect in eyewitness lineups may be guilty or innocent. These possibilities are traditionally simulated in eyewitness identification studies using a dual-lineup paradigm: All witnesses observe the same perpetrator and then receive one of two lineups. In this paradigm, the suspect’s guilt is manipulated by including the perpetrator in one lineup and an innocent suspect in the other. The lineup is then filled with people matched to either the suspect (resulting in different fillers in perpetrator-present and perpetrator-absent lineups) or to the perpetrator (resulting in the same fillers in each lineup). An inescapable feature of the dual-lineup paradigm is that the perpetrator-present and perpetrator-absent lineups differ not only in the suspect’s guilt, but also in their composition. Here, we describe a single-lineup paradigm: Subjects observe one of two perpetrators and then all subjects receive the same lineup containing one of the perpetrators. This alternative paradigm allows manipulation of the suspect’s guilt without changing the lineup’s composition. In three experiments, we applied the single-lineup paradigm to explore suspect-filler similarity and consistently found that increasing similarity reduced perpetrator identifications but did little to prevent innocent suspect misidentifications. Conversely, when fillers were matched to the perpetrator using a dual-lineup paradigm, increasing similarity reduced identification of perpetrators and innocent suspects. This finding suggests that the effect of filler similarity may depend on the person to whom the fillers are matched. We suggest that the single-lineup paradigm is a more ecologically valid and better controlled approach to creating suspect-matched lineups in laboratory investigations of eyewitness memory than existing procedures.

Intentionally Forgetting Other-Race Faces: Costs and Benefits?

Eyewitnesses to events with multiple actors might be aware that during a subsequent investigation some actors will need to be remembered and others can be forgotten. Research on the directed-forgetting procedure suggests that when some information is cued to be forgotten, retention of other information is enhanced. In three experiments, directed-forgetting conditions were compared with control conditions to assess potential costs and benefits of forgetting other-race faces. In Experiment 1, undergraduate students (N = 148; mostly Caucasian) viewed all Black faces or all Asian faces followed by overt remember or forget cues. Participants in the directed-forgetting conditions of Experiments 2 and 3 received more covert cues instructing them to remember the faces of one race and to forget the faces of another race. In Experiment 2, undergraduate students (N = 116; all Caucasian) viewed Black and Asian faces within the context of a criminal storyline. In Experiment 3, undergraduate students (N = 94; all Caucasian) again viewed Black and Asian faces; however, the remember and forget cues were embedded in a noncriminal narrative. Although faces generally were forgotten on cue, forgetting some faces did not enhance memory for other faces. Furthermore, recognition of remember-cued faces was impaired by exposure to forget-cued faces. These findings indicate that faces can be forgotten on cue, but that doing so confers no benefit for remembering other faces. Eyewitnesses are advised that exposure to irrelevant faces reduces the likelihood that relevant faces will be remembered, even when effort is allocated to forgetting the irrelevant faces.

Eyewitness identification: live, photo, and video lineups

The medium used to present lineup members for eyewitness identification varies according to the location of the criminal investigation. Although in some jurisdictions live lineups remain the default procedure, elsewhere this practice has been replaced with photo or video lineups. This divergence leads to two possibilities: Either some jurisdictions are not using the lineup medium that best facilitates accurate eyewitness identification or the lineup medium has no bearing on the accuracy of eyewitness identification. Photo and video lineups are the more practical options, but proponents of live lineups believe witnesses make better identification decisions when the lineup members are physically present. Here, the authors argue against this live superiority hypothesis. To be superior in practice, the benefits of live presentation would have to be substantial enough to overcome the inherent difficulties of organizing and administering a live lineup. The review of the literature suggests that even in experimental settings, where these difficulties can be minimized, it is not clear that live lineups are superior. The authors conclude that live lineups are rarely the best option in practice and encourage further research to establish which nonlive medium provides the best balance between probative value and practical utility.

How sure are you that this is the man you saw? Child witnesses can use confidence judgments to identify a target

We tested whether an alternative lineup procedure designed to minimize problematic influences (e.g., metacognitive development) on decision criteria could be effectively used by children and improve child eyewitness identification performance relative to a standard identification task. Five hundred sixteen children (6- to 13-year-olds) watched a video of a target reading word lists and, the next day, made confidence ratings for each lineup member or standard categorical decisions for 8 lineup members presented sequentially. Two algorithms were applied to classify confidence ratings into categorical decisions and facilitate comparisons across conditions. The classification algorithms produced accuracy rates for the confidence rating procedure that were comparable to the categorical procedure. These findings demonstrate that children can use a ratings-based procedure to discriminate between previously seen and unseen faces. In turn, this invites more nuanced and empirical consideration of ratings-based identification evidence as a probabilistic index of guilt that may attenuate problematic social influences on child witnesses’ decision criteria.