Cowitness identification speed affects choices from target-absent photospreads.

Douglass, Amy Bradfield; Lucas, Carmen A.; Brewer, Neil

doi:10.1037/lhb0000420

Cited by 5 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although this description was entirely accurate (i.e., medium-height, medium-weight Latino male with a dark T-shirt, jeans, and close-cut hair), it is still possible that hearing this description affected some witnesses’ memory for the culprit. Moreover, since the witnesses were taken one at a time to view the suspect, it is also possible that some witnesses may have made inferences of culprit presence based on how long other witnesses took to make their identification decisions (Douglass et al, 2020).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing witness performance in the field versus the lab: How real-world conditions affect eyewitness decision-making.

Eisen¹,

Ying²,

Chui³

et al. 2022

Law and Human Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: This field-simulation experiment was designed to compare eyewitness performance when conducting show ups and lineups under field versus laboratory conditions. Hypotheses: We expected to replicate the findings from previous field-simulation experiments showing overconfidence in show up identifications made under field but not lab conditions, and further predicted that under field conditions, high-confidence identifications are more likely to be correct when using lineups compared with show ups. It was also expected that field conditions would lead witnesses to lower their criterion for choosing with show ups, but we did not know how field conditions would affect lineup decision-making. Method: Participants (N = 719) witnessed the theft of a laptop computer and were asked to identify a suspect from a live show up, a photographic show up, or a photographic lineup administered under either field or lab conditions. In the field condition, uniformed officers functioned as experimenters and participants were immersed in what they were led to believe was an actual police investigation. In the lab condition, participants were debriefed before the identification procedure that the theft was staged for research purposes and that their identifications were being made as part of a study on eyewitness memory. Results: As predicted, witnesses were overconfident in their show up identifications made under field but not lab conditions, and high-confidence identifications were more likely to be correct when using lineups compared with show ups. Also as expected, field conditions led witnesses to lower their criterion for choosing with show ups regardless of culprit presence. However, the opposite was true for lineups, such that field conditions resulted in witnesses raising their criterion for choosing. Conclusions: Field conditions had a very different effect on witness performance when conducting show ups compared with lineups. When witnesses were led to believe that their identification would result in the arrest and prosecution of the suspect, they became more liberal in their decision-making when show ups were used but more conservative when lineups were employed. Public Significance StatementThis study examined how real-world conditions affect eyewitnesses beyond what can be assessed in a lab study. This was accomplished by comparing eyewitnesses' performance when they knew they were participating in research to their performance under field conditions, in which their identification would presumably result in the arrest of the suspect. Results demonstrated that many important findings from previous lab studies generalized well to field conditions, but also revealed that the situational pressures of being a witness in an actual police investigation can affect eyewitness performance differently depending on the procedures used to obtain the identification.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing witness performance in the field versus the lab: How real-world conditions affect eyewitness decision-making.

Eisen¹,

Ying²,

Chui³

et al. 2022

Law and Human Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In another study, witnesses were more likely to make a positive identification from a target-absent photo array when their co-witness made a fast versus slow identification decision (Experiment 1; Douglass et al, 2020). This effect of co-witness identification speed on witnesses’ willingness to make a positive identification held even when it was clear that the witness had made a positive identification (Experiment 2) or had rejected the photo array (Experiment 3; Douglass et al, 2020).…”

Section: Social Influence Effects On Eyewitness Behaviormentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, witnesses who heard that their co-witness made an identification from the photo array were more likely to also make a positive identification from the array than were witnesses who heard their cowitness had rejected the array (Levett, 2013). In another study, witnesses were more likely to make a positive identification from a target-absent photo array when their co-witness made a fast versus slow identification decision (Experiment 1; Douglass et al, 2020). This effect of co-witness identification speed on witnesses' willingness to make a positive identification held even when it was clear that the witness had made a positive identification (Experiment 2) or had rejected the photo array (Experiment 3; Douglass et al, 2020).…”

Section: Co-witness Influence On Eyewitness Accuracymentioning

confidence: 99%

Eyewitness identification in its social context.

Evelo

2021

Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Much of the literature on eyewitness identification neglects the social context in which identifications are made. As the number of cognitive psychologists conducting eyewitness research increased so did the use of signal detection theory and ROC analyses. With the resulting need for larger sample size, researchers moved toward conducting studies on internet platforms that allow for crowd-sourcing research participants. These methods make it next to impossible to ask research questions that explore the ways in which social interactions influence the identifications made by witnesses. Yet, the possibility of social context effects on witness memory are prevalent in applied contexts and research supports their existence. In addition, some eyewitness identifications may not be governed by memory at all. We argue that a consideration of social context effects is required to fully explore the reliability of witness identifications and propose a number of avenues for future research.

show abstract

“…This increasing reliance on signal detection theory analysis likely has caused scholars to focus on witness memory as the causal explanation for mistaken identifications to the exclusion of other types of variables that might influence the reliability of eyewitness identifications (Kovera & Evelo, 2021a, 2021b). Yet the social context in which witnesses operate clearly influences their identification decisions, allowing for social influence from lineup administrators (Kovera & Evelo, 2017) and co‐witnesses (Douglass et al., 2020; Levett, 2013). Thus, there have been calls for scholars to attend to the social context in which witnesses form, store, and recall their memories, urging that they attend not only to intrapersonal processes but also interpersonal ones (Kovera & Evelo, 2021b, Wells, 2020).…”

Section: The Importance Of Evaluating Suspect Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of suspect development practices in eyewitness identification accuracy and racial disparities in wrongful conviction

Kovera

2023

Social Issues Policy Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article reviews the three previously studied categories of variables that are related to eyewitness identification accuracy: estimator (characteristics of the witnessing conditions), system (characteristics of the identification procedure that are under the control of the criminal legal system), and reflector (variables that reflect the likely accuracy of a witness). Although eyewitness scholars frequently turn to these variables and models of memory to explain why eyewitnesses make mistakes, none of these variables provides a reasonable explanation for the large racial disparities in wrongful convictions based on mistaken identifications, yet problematic policing practices might. The policies and practices guiding police efforts to develop suspects as well as the decisions of officers to place a suspect at risk of misidentification determine the base‐rate of innocent suspects that appear in identification procedures. Current police practices—from developing suspects based on hunches, through facial recognition technology, or by pressuring reluctant witnesses to make identifications—increase the likelihood that innocent suspects will be placed in lineups. An increase in lineups with innocent suspects increases the ratio of mistaken to correct identifications without changes in witness performance. Requirements for evidence‐based suspicion, video recording identification procedures, and prohibiting coercive interviewing techniques with reluctant witnesses are recommended for reducing the effect of unreliable suspect development methods on eyewitness evidence.

show abstract

Cowitness identification speed affects choices from target-absent photospreads.

Cited by 5 publications

References 40 publications

Comparing witness performance in the field versus the lab: How real-world conditions affect eyewitness decision-making.

Comparing witness performance in the field versus the lab: How real-world conditions affect eyewitness decision-making.

Eyewitness identification in its social context.

The role of suspect development practices in eyewitness identification accuracy and racial disparities in wrongful conviction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About