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

Abstract

The goal of this study was to compare children's and adults eyewitness identification accuracy when presented with an array of possible suspects (‘lineup’) versus one suspect (‘showup’). Kindergarten children and adults were shown a slide show of a staged theft and subsequently asked whether, of the photo or photos shown them, the perpetrator was present or not. Children were more likely than adults to identify the perpetrator correctly when that suspect was present in the lineup or showup. Children were also more likely than adults to make an incorrect identification of another person when the perpetrator's photo was not present in the lineup or showup. Because false positive identification errors are more difficult to detect with the showup than the lineup, use of the showup may be less appropriate with child witnesses than with adults due to children's greater tendency to make positive identifications.

From Person Descriptions to Interviewing Methods: What Can Be Done to Improve Child Witnesses’ Testimonies?

“…Also, even the youngest of child witnesses are capable of accurately reporting the behaviour of others (Ceci et al 1998). Regarding verbal recall (which may contain descriptive details), Dekle et al (1996) found that compared to adults, children's free recall is less complete (but equally accurate). When children are allowed to recall information freely or through the use of general questions, even very young children can produce material that is as accurate as that given by adults (Hutche-son et al 1995).…”

“…Children's free recall usually contains few information units (Dekle et al 1996). However, when children are allowed to recall information freely or through the use of general questions, even very young children can produce material which is highly accurate (Hutcheson et al 1995 Developmentally it is typically more efficient to ask children general questions, because specific questions or difficult explanations can confuse children and result in increased numbers of false details.…”

Receiver operating characteristic analysis of age-related changes in lineup performance

“…a lineup containing only innocent persons), children are significantly more likely than adults to incorrectly identify someone as the perpetrator (Beal, Schmitt, & Dekle, 1995;Davies, 1996;Dekle, Beal, Elliott, & Huneycutt, 1996;Parker & Carranza, 1989;Parker & Ryan, 1993;Pozzulo & Balfour, 2006;Pozzulo & Dempsey, 2006). By adolescence (10-14 years), some research indicates that identification accuracy in target-absent lineups reaches adult levels Pozzulo & Warren, 2003, Experiment 2; for reviews, see, Havard, 2013: Pozzulo, 2007Pozzulo & Lindsay, 1998).…”

“…Children may also feel more social pressure to positively identify a face and feel greater reluctance to declare uncertainty compared to adults (Beal, et al, 1995;King & Yuille, 1987;Ricci, Beal, & Dekle, 1996). Children may also be less aware of the consequences of making a false identification (Brewer, Weber, & Semmler, 2005;Dekle, et al, 1996;Spring, Saltzstein, & Peach, 2013). Other researchers have proposed that memory sensitivity and response bias differ with age.…”

Eyewitness identification evidence and innocence risk

“…This analysis of criterion placement in simultaneous and sequential lineups may also apply to other results not included in our analyses. For example, some have suggested that sequential lineups are not advisable for child witnesses (Pozzulo & Lindsay, 1998), who may also tend to have lower decision criteria than do adult witnesses (see Dekle, Beal, Elliot, & Huneycutt, 1996).…”