Children as witnesses: A comparison of lineup versus showup identification methods

Dekle, Dawn J.; Beal, Carole R.; Elliott, Rogers; Huneycutt, Dominique

doi:10.1002/(sici)1099-0720(199602)10:1<1::aid-acp354>3.3.co;2-p

Cited by 10 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This was also found to be true as adults made correct rejections 62% of the time, whilst children only made them 42% of the time. These data also supports previous research which found that children perform more poorly than adults on TA lineups (Beal, Schmitt, & Dekle, 1995;Dekle et al, 1996;Lindsay et al, 1997;Parker & Carranza, 1989;Parker & Ryan, 1993;Pozzulo & Balfour, 2006;Pozzulo & Warren, 2003).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

“…Research investigating eyewitness identification has supported these data and reports that children over five years of age can be as accurate as adults when identifying a culprit from a target-present (TP) lineup (Goodman & Reed, 1986;Lindsay, Pozzulo, Craig, Lee, & Corber, 1997;Parker & Carranza, 1989;Parker & Ryan, 1993;Pozzulo & Balfour, 2006;Pozzulo & Lindsay, 1998). However, when presented with a target-absent (TA) lineup where the culprit is not present, children are more inclined to choose a lineup member than adults, and thereby make a false identification (Beal, Schmitt, & Dekle, 1995;Dekle, Beal, Elliot, & Huneycutt, 1996;Lindsay et al, 1997;Parker & Carranza, 1989;Parker & Ryan, 1993;Pozzulo & Balfour, 2006;Pozzulo & Warren, 2003).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 83%

“…Face recognition and eyewitness studies typically use young adult target faces, even when the participants are children. A number of eyewitness studies have used a target aged from early to mid twenties, however the participants have been threeÁsix-year-olds (Dekle et al, 1996;Goodman & Reed, 1986), 6Á10-yearolds (Beresford & Blades, 2006) and 8Á11 year olds (Parker & Carranza, 1989;Parker & Ryan, 1993;Zajac & Karageorge, 2009). A number of other studies have used an adult target, but have not given an age for the target and the participants who took part in the study were aged 8Á13 years (Pozzulo & Balfour, 2006) and 10Á14 years (Pozzulo & Lindsay, 1998;Pozzulo & Warren, 2003).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Own-age bias in video lineups: a comparison between children and adults

Havard

Memon

Laybourn

et al. 2012

Psychology, Crime & Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study investigated whether child (sixÁeight years of age) and adult witnesses (18Á29 years of age) would exhibit an own-age bias when trying to identify targets from video lineups. One hundred and eighty-six participants viewed two filmed events that were identical, except one starred a child target and one a young adult. After a delay of twoÁthree days each witness saw a lineup for the child and adult target. Children exhibited an own-age bias and were better at correctly identifying the own-age target from a target-present (TP) lineup and made more correct rejections for the own-age target-absent (TA) lineup. Adults however, showed a reversed own-age bias for the TP lineups as they made more correct identifications for the child target, but exhibited no bias for the TA lineups. The results suggest that differences in identification accuracy may be due to whether witness age and suspect age overlap.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 83%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Own-age bias in video lineups: a comparison between children and adults

Havard

Memon

Laybourn

et al. 2012

Psychology, Crime & Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…When presented with a target‐absent lineup, the correct response is to reject the lineup by saying that the target is not present. Children, however, appear to experience considerable difficulty rejecting lineups (Dekle, Beal, Elliott, & Huneycutt, 1996; Gross & Hayne, 1996; Parker & Carranza, 1989; Zajac & Karageorge, 2009); they are more likely than adults to choose a lineup member (see Pozzulo & Lindsay, 1998, for a meta‐analysis). If the suspect in a lineup is innocent yet selected by the witness, the chances of wrongful conviction increase dramatically.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring the effects of age and delay on children's person identifications: Verbal descriptions, lineup performance, and the influence of wildcards

Karageorge¹,

Zajac²

2011

British Journal of Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We explored the effects of age and retention interval on several measures of children's person identification ability: verbal descriptions, lineup performance, and the success of a 'wildcard'--a photo of a silhouetted figure with a large question mark superimposed--in reducing children's tendency to choose from target-absent lineups. Children aged 5-7 years (N= 101) and 8-11 years (N= 109) were briefly exposed to an experimental confederate during a staged event. Either 1-2 days or 2 weeks later, children described the confederate and were then presented with either a target-present or -absent lineup. Within each group, approximately half of the children were presented with a wildcard and half were not. Target-present lineup performance improved as age increased. Compared to control children, children in the wildcard condition were more likely to correctly reject the target-absent lineup, and less likely to identify the innocent suspect. The wildcard did not influence children's target-present lineup accuracy, nor did delay exert an influence on any of our measures of lineup performance. These findings extend our knowledge of children's person identifications, as well as providing further support for the use of wildcards in photographic lineups.

show abstract

“…This could occur by encouraging a stricter reporting criterion that should reduce positive identifications from target‐absent lineups and, yet, perhaps not undermine target‐present accuracy given that the target will, on average, be a relatively strong match to the child's memory of the offender. Three previous studies (Dekle, Beal, Elliott, & Huneycutt, 1996; Memon & Rose, 2002; Pozzulo & Lindsay, 1997) have reported that child witnesses (aged 5–6, 8–9, and 10–14 years, respectively) seldom used a Don't Know option. Pozzulo and Lindsay (1997) also found that extended instructions which highlighted the negative consequences of identifying the wrong person had no impact on target‐absent performance of children aged 10–14 years, although a Don't Know option was not provided in this condition.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Children's eyewitness identification performance: Effects of a Not Sure response option and accuracy motivation

Brewer

Keast

Sauer

2010

Legal Criminol Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose. Children who witness crimes are sometimes asked to view a photospread lineup to see if they can identify the culprit. Here, we examined the effectiveness of two manipulations designed to assist in overcoming the tendency of child eyewitnesses to choose from lineups, a tendency that manifests in false identifications from target‐absent lineups. Methods. Children aged around 12 years (N = 432) were randomly assigned to control, Not Sure, or accuracy motivation conditions in order to examine both target‐absent and ‐present identification test performance across multiple sets of stimulus materials. Results. The Not Sure option did not affect false alarms or hit rates, but the combination of accuracy motivating conditions and the Not Sure option reduced guessing, with overall rates of false identifications falling by 12.2%. The latter effect was much stronger under some stimulus conditions but not detectable under others, indicating that the manipulations could improve but not impair performance. While there were beneficial effects at the group level, the manipulation did not produce a general change in individual children's decision strategies. Conclusions. Eyewitness identification test manipulations that reliably reduce false alarms, without lowering hits, by child witnesses have not yet been identified. Here, we showed how a simple‐to‐implement accuracy motivation manipulation reduces false alarms under some conditions, while also highlighting the importance of evaluating the efficacy of interventions across varied encoding and test conditions. However, developing a procedure that can produce a generalized improvement in decision making at the individual level remains a major challenge for eyewitness researchers.

show abstract

Children as witnesses: A comparison of lineup versus showup identification methods

Cited by 10 publications

References 13 publications

Own-age bias in video lineups: a comparison between children and adults

Own-age bias in video lineups: a comparison between children and adults

Exploring the effects of age and delay on children's person identifications: Verbal descriptions, lineup performance, and the influence of wildcards

Children's eyewitness identification performance: Effects of a Not Sure response option and accuracy motivation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About