Eyewitness identification procedures rely heavily on explicit identification from lineups. Lineups have been criticized because they have a considerable error rate. We tested the potential of implicit identifications in a Concealed Information Test (CIT) as an alternative. Previous experiments have suggested that implicit identification procedures might be suited when viewing conditions were favorable. In two experiments, mock eyewitnesses (Ns = 94, 509) witnessed a videotaped mock theft with longer or shorter observation time. We derived eyewitness identifications either implicitly from CIT reaction times or explicitly from simultaneous photo lineups. In Experiment 2, we also manipulated perpetrator presence. In both experiments, the perpetrator-present CIT showed capacity to diagnose face recognition, with large effect sizes (dE1 = 0.85 [0.51; 1.18]; dE2 = 0.74 [0.52; 0.96]), as expected. Unexpectedly, no moderation by observation time was found. In line with our hypothesis, no CIT effect emerged in the perpetrator-absent condition, indicating the absence of recognition (dE2 = 0.02 [− 0.17; 0.20]). We found no compelling evidence that one method would outperform the other. This work adds to accumulating evidence that suggests that, under favorable viewing conditions and replication provided, the RT-CIT might be diagnostic of facial recognition, for example when witnesses are hesitant of making an explicit identification. Future work might investigate conditions that affect performance in one, but not the other identification method.

Mistaken eyewitness identifications continue to be a major contributor to miscarriages of justice. Previous experiments have suggested that implicit identification procedures such as the Concealed Information Test (CIT) might be a promising alternative to classic lineups when encoding conditions during the crime were favorable. We tested this idea by manipulating view congruency (frontal vs. profile view) between encoding and test. Participants witnessed a videotaped mock theft that showed the thief and victim almost exclusively from frontal or profile view. At test, viewing angle was either congruent or incongruent with the view during encoding. We tested eyewitness identification with the RT-CIT (N = 74), and with a traditional simultaneous photo lineup (N = 97). The CIT showed strong capacity to diagnose face recognition (d = 0.91 [0.64; 1.18]), but unexpectedly, view congruency did not moderate this effect. View congruency moderated lineup performance for one of the two lineups. Following these unexpected findings, we conducted a replication with a stronger congruency manipulation and larger sample size. CIT (N = 156) showed moderate capacity to diagnose face recognition (d = 0.63 [0.46; 0.80]) and now view congruency did moderate the CIT effect. For lineups (N = 156), view congruency again moderated performance for one of the two lineups. Capacity for diagnosing face recognition was similar for lineups and RT-CIT in our first comparison, but much stronger for lineups in our second comparison. Future experiments might investigate more conditions that affect performance in lineups vs. the RT-CIT differentially.