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

Abstract

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.

Unfair Lineups Make Witnesses More Likely to Confuse Innocent and Guilty Suspects

“…It is widely documented that variability in encoding and test conditions is crucial when trying to detect reliable and generalizable effects (Brewer, Keast, & Sauer, 2010;Lindsay, Read, & Sharma, 1998 Evidence, 1999;Wells, 1993).…”

Face Recognition Difficulties in Children: Hits and/or Correct Rejections?

“…Therefore, the difficulty in encoding unfamiliar faces in the first place, independent of any memory-related problems, may contribute to the eyewitness identification problems in children. This is important as researchers have already attempted to improve the reliability of eyewitness identifications in children by implementing procedural changes such as elimination lineups [12] or the inclusion of a "not sure" response option [13]. Therefore, any attempts to improve the accuracy of eyewitness identification in children also need to focus on assessing their ability to encode unfamiliar faces in the first place.…”

The Impact of the "Not Sure" Option on Lineup Identification Decisions

“…However, it is difficult to generalize from Clake, Howell, and Davey's (2008) results since the studies they used in their comparisons did not experimentally manipulate the availability of the don't know option A more important question is whether a not sure option affects accuracy. Indeed, only a few line-up studies (e.g., Brewer, Keast, & Sauer, 2010;Steblay & Philips, 2011;Weber & Perfect, 2011) have directly manipulated the availability of the don't know or not sure option to examine its impact on witness identification accuracy using Koriat and Goldsmith's (1996) model as a theoretical framework. In Brewer, Keast and Sauer (2010), participants (children) viewed video clips of simulated crimes varying in terms of crime nature and exposure time.…”

“…Indeed, only a few line-up studies (e.g., Brewer, Keast, & Sauer, 2010;Steblay & Philips, 2011;Weber & Perfect, 2011) have directly manipulated the availability of the don't know or not sure option to examine its impact on witness identification accuracy using Koriat and Goldsmith's (1996) model as a theoretical framework. In Brewer, Keast and Sauer (2010), participants (children) viewed video clips of simulated crimes varying in terms of crime nature and exposure time. After viewing the stimulus video, participants were randomly assigned to one of three instruction conditions and administered a lineup.…”

“…In fact, the identification of innocent suspects has already been identified as a major contributor to injustice in the legal system (Malpass & Devine, 1981). Despite much research documenting the fallibility of eyewitness identification (e.g., Brewer, Keast, & Sauer, 2010;Kohnken & Maass, 1988;Wells & Loftus, 1983;Loftus, 1979;Goldstein, 1977), jurors and judges routinely rely heavily on eyewitness evidence when forming opinions and making decisions (e.g., Kohnken & Maass, 1988;Loftus, 1979). The overreliance on eyewitness evidence as a crucial crime-solving tool poses serious challenges to the accuracy of investigation outcomes, and inevitably leads to instances of wrongful conviction of innocent suspects.…”