‘Good, you identified the suspect…but please ignore this feedback’: can warnings eliminate the effects of post‐identification feedback?

Abstract

The present experiments focus on whether the post-identification feedback effect can be reduced by providing participants with warnings. Participants viewed a crime on video and identified a suspect from a target-absent lineup (Experiment 1) or target-present lineup (Experiment 2). Participants then received positive feedback, negative feedback or no feedback. Half of the participants received a warning saying their feedback was randomly generated by the computer, and the other half received no warning. Robust post-identification feedback effects were observed in both experiments in the no warning condition. These effects were largely eliminated when participants received a warning. In Experiments 3 and 4, we failed to find an ameliorative effect of a forensically realistic warning. These results indicate that warnings can reduce the effect of post-identification feedback in principle, but the application of warnings in practice may be more difficult.

Post‐identification feedback effects: Investigators and evaluators

“…Consistent with previous research (e.g. Bradfield et al, 2002;Lampinen et al, 2007;Wells & Bradfield, 1998) we found that positive post-ID feedback ('Good you identified the suspect') raised eyewitness confidence and altered crime recollections in all witnesses (regardless of whether they had a good or a poor view).…”

“…Post-identification feedback from a line-up administrator or co-witness can contaminate eyewitness evidence, changing witnesses' confidence in their identification decisions and shifting their recollections of the events and their viewing experience (Bradfield, Wells, & Olson, 2002;Lampinen, Scott, Pratt, Leding, & Arnal, 2007;Wells & Bradfield, 1998). The phenomenon is known as the post-identification (post-ID) feedback effect (Wells & Bradfield, 1998, 1999.…”

The effect of evidence type, identification accuracy, line‐up presentation, and line‐up administration on observers' perceptions of eyewitnesses

“…The post‐identification feedback effect extends to earwitnesses (Quinlivan et al ., ) and persists regardless of line‐up instructions (Semmler et al ., ), delay (Quinlivan, Neuschatz, Douglass, Wells, & Wetmore, ; Wells, Olson, & Charman, ), and eyewitnesses' prior expectations of having to identify the perpetrator (Douglass & McQuiston‐Surrett, ). Douglass and Steblay's () meta‐analysis established that this is a robust effect; nonetheless, obtaining confidence statements before feedback (Quinlivan et al ., ; Wells & Bradfield, ) and highlighting the dubious nature of the feedback (e.g., Lampinen et al ., ; Neuschatz et al ., ; Quinlivan et al ., ) can protect against confidence inflation.…”

The dark side of testing memory: Repeated retrieval can enhance eyewitness suggestibility.

“…However, in actual criminal investigations, it is unclear whether or from where a witness might have encountered misinformation. Consequently, warnings are likely less specific in the field than in experiments (for a similar argument on warning in the context of post-identification feedback, see Lampinen, Scott, Pratt, Leding, & Arnal, 2007), and the specificity of a warning can have a large impact on its effectiveness. For example, general warnings that simply question the credibility of the postevent narrative (e.g., Greene, Flynn, & Loftus, 1982) often produce weaker effects than specific warnings that directly inform participants not to report information from the narrative (e.g., Lindsay, 1990;Wright, 1993).…”