Eyewitness Identification Accuracy and Response Latency: The Unruly 10-12-Second Rule.

Abstract

Data are reported from 3,213 research eyewitnesses confirming that accurate eyewitness identifications from lineups are made faster than are inaccurate identifications. However, consistent with predictions from the recognition and search literatures, the authors did not find support for the "10-12-s rule" in which lineup identifications faster than 10-12 s maximally discriminate between accurate and inaccurate identifications (D. Dunning & S. Perretta, 2002). Instead, the time frame that proved most discriminating was highly variable across experiments, ranging from 5 s to 29 s, and the maximally discriminating time was often unimpressive in its ability to sort accurate from inaccurate identifications. The authors suggest several factors that are likely to moderate the 10-12-s rule.

An examination of simultaneous lineup identification decision processes using eye tracking

“…"), whereas deliberative processing characterizes slower and more effortful identifications, whereby the participant engages in a process of elimination. Research consistently finds that the total amount of time that it takes to issue a lineup response tends to be relatively rapid when a positive identification is accurate rather than inaccurate (e.g., Brewer, Caon, Todd, & Weber, 2006;Brewer, Gordon, & Bond, 2000;Sporer, 1992Sporer, , 1993Sporer, , 1994Weber, Brewer, Wells, Semmler, & Keast, 2004). These results suggest that participants who use an automatic rather than a deliberative decision strategy have a higher rate of identification Lineup Identification Decision Processes 5 accuracy.…”

“…Finally, we agree with Mansour and colleagues (2009) that the effects observed in eye movement data are small and variable. Features of the to-beremembered event and the lineup faces can affect response time, thereby making it inappropriate to say that there is an ideal amount of time that distinguishes an accurate identification over an inaccurate one (Weber et al, 2004). For all of these reasons, it would be premature to try to apply these findings to actual legal cases without performing many additional studies that employ a range of conditions that are more similar to the ecology of actual eyewitnesses.…”

Eyewitness confidence and latency: Indices of memory processes not just markers of accuracy

“…Despite the limited empirical work on this issue, a reliable latency-accuracy relationship has been demonstrated for choosers, with accurate identifications being produced faster than inaccurate identifications (Brewer, Caon, Todd, & Weber, 2006;Brewer, Gordon, & Bond, 2000;Sauerland & Sporer, in press;Sporer, 1992Sporer, , 1993Sporer, , 1994Weber, Brewer, Wells, Semmler, & Keast, 2004). Given the limitations associated with a single trial latency measure obtained under unspecified speed-accuracy operating characteristics, the reliability of this relationship is impressive.…”

Eyewitness Evidence

“…We use ''response latency'' rather than ''decision time,'' because the former term incorporates both decisional and motor components (Weber, Brewer, Wells, Semmler, & Keast, 2004). The effect was first documented by Sporer (1992); considerable data have accumulated showing that witnesses who make accurate identifications from lineups do so faster than do those who make inaccurate identifications (Dunning & Perretta, 2002;Smith, Lindsay, & Pryke, 2000;Smith, Lindsay, Pryke, & Dysart, 2001;Sporer, 1993Sporer, , 1994.…”