Applied issues in the construction and expert assessment of photo lineups

Brigham, John C.; Meissner, Christian A.; Wasserman, Adina W.

doi:10.1002/(sici)1099-0720(199911)13:1+<s73::aid-acp631>3.3.co;2-w

Cited by 36 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As we have discussed elsewhere (Brigham, Wasserman, & Meissner, 1999), several purported "safeguards" are available to defendants accused primarily on the basis of eyewitness evidence, including cross-examination by defense counsel, cautionary instructions to jurors, and expert testimony regarding eyewitness evidence. Although cross-examination has not been shown effective in allowing jurors to distinguish accurate from inaccurate eyewitnesses (R. C. Lindsay, Wells, & O'Connor, 1989; R. C. Lindsay, Wells, & Rumpel, 1981), cautionary jury instructions may have some potential (Cutler, Dexter, & Penrod, 1990;Greene, 1988;Katzev & Wishart, 1985), assuming that they contain accurate information.…”

Section: Legal "Safeguards" To the Orb In Eyewitness Identificationmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Furthermore, expert witnesses have cited the effect in cases involving disputed cross-race identification (Brigham, Wasserman, & Meissner, 1999;Leippe, 1995), and attorneys have acknowledged the importance of racial interactions in eyewitness identifications (Brigham, 1981;Brigham & WolfsKeil, 1983). Given the source of such endorsements, one might be quick to concede the robust and generalizable nature of the ORB effect.…”

Section: Reliability Of the Orb Effectmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some have suggested that greater research attention should be directed toward system variables, because research results may be more directly applicable to police procedures and legal policy. However, there is one related aspect of the ORB that does involve system variables, namely the procedures used in the construction of identification lineups (Brigham, Meissner, & Wasserman, 1999;Brigham & Ready, 1985). Brigham and Ready (1985) found that race influenced the manner in which individuals constructed lineups, such that both Blacks and Whites used a looser criterion (i.e., more faces were seen as similar to each other, and therefore as useful in a lineup) when constructing lineups of other-race faces as compared with constructing own-race lineups.…”

Section: Applied Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Thirty years of investigating the own-race bias in memory for faces: A meta-analytic review.

Meissner

Brigham²

2001

Psychology, Public Policy, and Law

Self Cite

1,402

111

1,424

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The current article reviews the own-race bias (ORB) phenomenon in memory for human faces, the finding that own-race faces are better remembered when compared with memory for faces of another, less familiar race. Data were analyzed from 39 research articles, involving 91 independent samples and nearly 5,000 participants. Measures of hit and false alarm rates, and aggregate measures of discrimination accuracy and response criterion were examined, including an analysis of 8 study moderators. Several theoretical relationships were also assessed (i.e., the influence of racial attitudes and interracial contact). Overall, results indicated a "mirror effect" pattern in which own-race faces yielded a higher proportion of hits and a lower proportion of false alarms compared with other-race faces. Consistent with this effect, a significant ORB was also found in aggregate measures of discrimination accuracy and response criterion. The influence of perceptual learning and differentiation processes in the ORB are discussed, in addition to the practical implications of this phenomenon.

show abstract

Section: Legal "Safeguards" To the Orb In Eyewitness Identificationmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Reliability Of the Orb Effectmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Applied Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Thirty years of investigating the own-race bias in memory for faces: A meta-analytic review.

Meissner

Brigham²

2001

Psychology, Public Policy, and Law

Self Cite

1,402

111

1,424

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…When evaluating real lineups, researchers typically present mock witnesses with descriptions from actual eyewitnesses (e.g., Brigham, Meissner, & Wasserman, 1999;Corey, Malpass, & McQuiston, 1999). Studies using laboratory-constructed lineups have used descriptions from one or more independent individuals in pilot testing (e.g., Lindsay, Ross, Smith, & Flanigan, 1999;Mansour et al, 2012), the eyewitness-participants themselves (e.g.…”

Section: Descriptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating lineup fairness: Variations across methods and measures.

Mansour¹,

Beaudry²,

Kalmet³

et al. 2017

Law and Human Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Triers of fact sometimes consider lineup fairness when determining the suggestiveness of an identification procedure. Likewise, researchers often consider lineup fairness when comparing results across studies. Despite their importance, lineup fairness measures have received scant empirical attention and researchers inconsistently conduct and report mock-witness tasks and lineup fairness measures. We conducted a large-scale, online experiment (N = 1,010) to examine how lineup fairness measures varied with mock-witness task methodologies as well as to explore the validity and reliability of the measures. In comparison to descriptions compiled from multiple witnesses, when individual descriptions were presented in the mock-witness task, lineup fairness measures indicated a higher number of plausible lineup members but more bias toward the suspect. Target-absent lineups were consistently estimated to be fairer than target-present lineups—which is problematic because it suggests that lineups containing innocent suspects are less likely to be challenged in court than lineups containing guilty suspects. Correlations within lineup size measures and within some lineup bias measures indicated convergent validity and the correlations across the lineup size and lineup bias measures demonstrated discriminant validity. The reliability of lineup fairness measures across different descriptions was low and reliability across different sets of mock witnesses was moderate to high, depending on the measure. Researchers reporting lineup fairness measures should specify the type of description presented, the amount of detail in the description, and whether the mock witnesses viewed target-present and/or -absent lineups.

show abstract

“…Mock witness evaluations are widely used in eyewitness research to test the fairness of lineups (see Brigham, Meissner, & Wasserman, 1999;Malpass & Lindsay, 1999). A group of mock witnesses, who have not witnessed the crime event in question and who are blind to the identity of the perpetrator, are typically provided a brief description of the perpetrator and are asked to select the suspect from the lineup on the basis of this description.…”

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Eyewitness decisions in simultaneous and sequential lineups: A dual-process signal detection theory analysis

et al. 2005

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many eyewitness researchers have argued for the application of a sequential alternative to the traditional simultaneous lineup, given its role in decreasing false identifications of innocent suspects (sequential superiority effect). However, Ebbesen and Flowe (2002) have recently noted that sequential lineups may merely bring about a shift in response criterion, having no effect on discrimination accuracy. We explored this claim, using a method that allows signal detection theory measures to be collected from eyewitnesses. In three experiments, lineup type was factorially combined with conditions expected to influence response criterion and/or discrimination accuracy. Results were consistent with signal detection theory predictions, including that of a conservative criterion shift with the sequential presentation of lineups. In a fourth experiment, we explored the phenomenological basis for the criterion shift, using the remember-know-guess procedure. In accord with previous research, the criterion shift in sequential lineups was associated with a reduction in familiarity-based responding. It is proposed that the relative similarity between lineup members may create a context in which fluency-based processing is facilitated to a greater extent when lineup members are presented simultaneously.

show abstract

Applied issues in the construction and expert assessment of photo lineups

Cited by 36 publications

References 16 publications

Thirty years of investigating the own-race bias in memory for faces: A meta-analytic review.

Thirty years of investigating the own-race bias in memory for faces: A meta-analytic review.

Evaluating lineup fairness: Variations across methods and measures.

Eyewitness decisions in simultaneous and sequential lineups: A dual-process signal detection theory analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About