Examining the cross-race effect in lineup identification using Caucasian and First Nations samples.

Abstract

This study examined whether findings from research on the cross-race effect (CRE) in eyewitness memory with Caucasian-Black samples can be generalised to Caucasian-First Nations pairings in a lineup idenliflcation task. This study used a novel approach to investigate the CRE. using six targets, as well as simultaneous lineups that included both target-present atid target-absent arrays. This study also addressed the efficacy of the contact hypothesis as it applies to these populations. A significant CRE was discovered. Furthermore. Ixith Caaca.sian and First Nations participants were more likeiy to ch(K)se from the lineup when attempting to recognise First Nations faces than when attempting to recognise Caucasian faces. Contact with the other race had no effect on recognition accuracy of that race. Potential implications and directions for future research are discussed.

Cross-racial lineup identification: assessing the potential benefits of context reinstatement

“…It is important to note that other studies from our laboratory (Jackiw et al, 2008) have demonstrated the traditional CRE when using a lineup recognition paradigm, but in the absence of other semantic information being provided at encoding. As a result, we believe that our No Information condition was inconsistent with more traditional attempts to asses the CRE.…”

“…No designated 'innocent suspect' was chosen for the target-absent lineups, such that analyses focused upon the aggregate rate of false alarm responses to foils in such arrays (cf. Jackiw et al, 2008;Meissner, Tredoux et al, 2005). No foils (non-target faces) were repeated across lineups, including the target-absent and target-present lineups for a given face.…”

“…Given that the 'recollection' of contextually rich information has been shown to be superior for own-race faces, such a perspective would predict an interaction between context reinstatement and the CRE on identification accuracy. The current study sought to assess these predictions using a lineup recognition paradigm (Jackiw et al, 2008;Psychology, Crime & Law 21 Meissner, Tredoux et al, 2005) in which participants encoded both own-and otherrace faces and were later asked to identify these faces from a sequence of targetpresent and target-absent lineups. Context reinstatement was manipulated across participants by providing semantic information at study and, in some cases, reinstating that information at the time of identification.…”

“…Jackiw, Arbuthnott, Pfeifer, Marcon, & Meissner, 2008;Pezdek & Blandon-Gitlin, 2005) have attempted to supplement the literature on the CRE by addressing this generally neglected aspect of the phenomenon. One such paradigm, employed by Jackiw and colleagues, involves the presentation of multiple target faces (similar to standard recognition paradigms in the face memory literature), but subsequently presents both target-present and target-absent lineups to participants, thereby allowing for the estimation of signal detection measures across conditions (see Meissner, Tredoux, Parker, & MacLin, 2005).…”

A ‘middle road’ approach to bridging the basic–applied divide in eyewitness identification research

“…This paradigm differs from the more traditional eyewitness identification task by providing multiple identification opportunities to participants across both target-present and target-absent arrays, yet in doing so it also provides an opportunity to test theory using a variety of process measures. The paradigm has been used to examine lineup presentation factors (Meissner et al, 2005), carryover effects from show-ups to lineups (Haw, Dickinson, & Meissner, 2007), the cross-race effect (Evans, Marcon, & Meissner, in press;Jackiw, Arbuthnott, Pfeifer, Marcon, & Meissner, 2008) and the relationship between memory for contextual details and identification accuracy (Lane, Groft, Roussel, & Calamia, 2008).…”