Identification accuracy of children and adults was examined in a meta-analysis. Preschoolers (M = 4 years) were less likely than adults to make correct identifications. Children over the age of 5 did not differ significantly from adults with regard to correct identification rate. Children of all ages examined were less likely than adults to correctly reject a target-absent lineup. Even adolescents (M = 12-13 years) did not reach an adult rate of correct rejection. Compared to simultaneous lineup presentation, sequential lineups increased the child-adult gap for correct rejections. Providing child witnesses with identification practice or training did not increase their correct rejection rates. Suggestions for children's inability to correctly reject target-absent lineups are discussed. Future directions for identification research are presented.

Elimination lineup procedures were proposed that required the witness to eliminate all but 1 lineup member before being asked if the remaining lineup member was the criminal. Elimination lineups were designed and tested with the aim of reducing false-positive choices by child eyewitnesses (n = 587 children, 10-14 years, M = 12 years; n = 185 adults). Elimination lineups decreased false-positive responding in children without significantly reducing correct identifications. Fast elimination lineups with modified instructions emphasizing the negative consequences of identifying an innocent person and explaining how to make an absolute judgment significantly decreased children's false-positive rate to a level comparable with adults shown a simultaneous lineup. The potential benefits of elimination lineup procedures for child witnesses are discussed.In some cases-sexual assaults by pedophiles, for example-child eyewitnesses may be the only source of information available to law enforcement officials. The child may be asked to recount what occurred during the crime, and eventually the child witness may be asked to examine a lineup and provide an identification of the criminal. Shown a criminal-present lineup, children over the age of 5 typically produce rates of correct identification comparable to those of adults (Pozzulo & Lindsay, 1998). Shown a criminal-absent lineup, however, children consistently produce more false positives than adults do (Pozzulo & Lindsay, 1998). For example, Parker and Ryan (1993) found that 83% of children and 58% of adults incorrectly selected someone from target-absent lineups. Similarly, Lindsay, Pozzulo, Craig, Lee, and Corber (1997, Experiment 1), found that children made more false positives (70%) than adults did (34%). Thus, children are prone to making falsepositive choices from lineups, which may discourage police officers and prosecutors from seeking and using the identification evidence of child witnesses.An identification procedure for children is needed that

Two experiments were conducted comparing the identification accuracy of children aged 3-15 years (N = 307) and undergraduates (N = 384) using target-present and target-absent simultaneous and sequential lineups and showups. Correct identification rates tended not to vary across either age of subject or identification procedure. However, children show a significant tendency to guess as indicated by their lower rate of correct rejection when the target is absent. The tendency for children to make false positive choices was particularly evident with showups.

Two studies varying target gender and mode of target exposure were conducted to compare the quantity, nature, and accuracy of free recall person descriptions provided by youths and adults. In addition, the relation among age, identification accuracy, and number of descriptors reported was considered. Youths (10-14 years) reported fewer descriptors than adults. Exterior facial descriptors (e.g., hair items) were predominant and accurately reported by youths and adults. Accuracy was consistently problematic for youths when reporting body descriptors (e.g., height, weight) and interior facial features. Youths reported a similar number of descriptors when making accurate versus inaccurate identification decisions. This pattern also was consistent for adults. With target-absent lineups, the difference in the number of descriptors reported between adults and youths was greater when making a false positive versus correct rejection.

The purpose of this research was to determine if child eyewitnesses are seen as more or less credible compared with older eyewitnesses and to determine whether the number of descriptive errors made while recalling the appearance of a perpetrator has an influence on perceived credibility of the witness. Mock jurors were given a mock trial that presented a positive identification by an eyewitness where age of the eyewitness (4-, 12-, 20-year-old) and the number of perpetrator descriptor errors (i.e., 0, 3, 6) made by the eyewitness were manipulated. Perceived levels of credibility, accuracy, and determinations of guilt were compared using a self-report questionnaire. Results support the hypothesis that mock jurors perceive eyewitnesses who make fewer errors in descriptions with more integrity (i.e., more credible, reliable, and accurate) and perceive the evidence presented by them (i.e., description of perpetrator and description of events) as more reliable. Overall, adult eyewitnesses are perceived with more integrity than child eyewitnesses.

Mock jurors (N = 363) read a mock trial transcript that examined the influence of age of witness (child vs. adult), the witness's relationship to the crime (bystander vs. victim), and the type of eyewitness identification decision (positive vs. foil vs. nonidentification) on their perception of the witness's accuracy for other crime details, credibility, and verdict. The offender's physical description was perceived as more accurate with a positive versus foil identification. The perceived accuracy of the offender's description did not vary with a positive identification versus nonidentification. Child victims were perceived as credible as adult victims, but a child as a bystander was perceived as less credible than an adult as a bystander. More guilty verdicts were rendered with a positive identification versus a foil identification or a nonidentification. Guilty verdicts were made at a comparable rate when the witness made a foil identification or a nonidentification.

No abstract

Mock jurors provided credibility ratings for a victim (12 years old) and defendant when victim gender, defendant gender, and defendant age (15 vs. 40 years old) were manipulated. Verdicts and sentence recommendations also were assessed. Higher guilt ratings were found for a male versus female defendant. Juror gender was examined as a covariate in the analyses. Female jurors rated the victim higher on accuracy, truthfulness, and believability than male jurors. Male jurors rated the defendant higher on reliability, credibility, truthfulness, and believability than female jurors. Male jurors perceived the victim to desire and cause the crime to a greater extent than female jurors. Mock jurors rated the victim as more responsible for the crime with an older versus younger defendant. Female jurors ascribed higher responsibility to the defendant compared to male jurors. The younger versus older defendant was perceived to have desired the event but only when the victim was female versus male.