Own-age bias in video lineups: a comparison between children and adults

Havard, Catriona; Memon, Amina; Laybourn, Phyllis; Cunningham, Clare L.

doi:10.1080/1068316x.2011.598156

Cited by 10 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Brewer, 2006), this has not been thought to extend to children younger than 12 years (Brewer & Palmer, 2010). Nonetheless, there has been research that found children aged 6-8 years had higher confidence ratings for correct identifications for TP line-ups, than those who did not correctly identify a culprit (Havard, Memon, Laybourn, & Cunningham, 2011). These findings suggest that there may be situations under which a child's confidence can be a reliable indicator of accuracy.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 76%

The Mystery Man Can Help Reduce False Identification for Child Witnesses: Evidence from Video Line‐ups

Havard

Memon

2012

Applied Cognitive Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary: It is well established that children (as young as 5 years) can correctly identify a target from a target present (TP) line-up as accurately as adults; however, when shown a target absent (TA) line-up, children make more false identifications. In the present study, children aged 5-7 and 8-11 years viewed a film of a staged theft, then 1-2 days later were shown either a TP or TA video lineup. Half of the witnesses viewed line-ups that included a 'mystery man' (a black silhouette with a white question mark), which they could select if they did not recognise anyone from the line-up. When the 'mystery man' was present in the line-up, there were significantly fewer false identifications for the TA line-ups. This study shows that including a silhouette in a video line-up can help reduce false identifications for children as young as 5 years of age, without reducing correct identifications.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 76%

The Mystery Man Can Help Reduce False Identification for Child Witnesses: Evidence from Video Line‐ups

Havard

Memon

2012

Applied Cognitive Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Therefore, as most studies have used a young adult target in their mid-20s (Beresford & Blades, 2006;Dekle et al, 1996;Parker & Carranza, 1989;Parker & Ryan, 1993;Zajac & Karageorge, 2009) this immediately puts children at a slight disadvantage, when it comes to making an identification. One study that looked at the own age bias with child witnesses (aged 6Á8 years) found that correct rejection rates were higher for the similar aged child target (59%), as compared to the adult target (20%), and these rates were more comparable to correct rejection rates made by adult witnesses (Havard, Memon, Laybourn, & Cunningham, 2012).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Are children less reliable at making visual identifications than adults? A review

Havard

2013

Psychology, Crime & Law

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The current paper reviews research that has investigated developmental differences in lineup identification. A wealth of studies have shown that children can be as accurate as adults when making a correct identification from a target present lineup (TP), however children are more inclined to choose and thereby make a false identification from a target absent (TA) lineup, as compared to adults. The literature reviewed, suggests that the disparity between children's and adult's performances on TA lineups is due to children being unable to resist the social demands to choose someone from a lineup and/or the need to give a positive response. Employing a silhouette within a lineup, that can be chosen if the target is not recognised, appears to be the most successful technique for reducing false identifications made by child witnesses. Including a silhouette as a part of a lineup, along with the lineup administrator being attired in casual clothing, rather than a uniform, are two simple measures that could make child witness identification evidence more reliable.

show abstract

“…Child participants made more correct identifications and correct rejections of child targets than adult targets while adult participants made more correct identification of child targets over adult targets with no difference in correct rejections of either target. (Harvard C., Memon, Laybourn, & Cunningham, 2012). Within adults, there is no difference in correct identifications or correct rejections of young adults, middle aged adults, and senior adults in identifying a young adult target.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 92%