Pre‐admonition Suggestion in Live Showups: When Witnesses Learn that the Cops Caught ‘the’ Guy

Eisen, Mitchell L.; Skerrit‐Perta, Amaia; Jones, Jennifer M.; Owen, Jade; Cedré, Gabriela C.

doi:10.1002/acp.3349

Cited by 4 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This is typical of the proportion of doubters found in previous field-simulation experiments that have employed a similar paradigm (Eisen, Skerrit-Perta, et al, 2017; Eisen, Smith, et al, 2017). Previous field-simulation experiments have found that participants who did not express significant doubts that the crime and identification procedures were real (henceforward, “true believers”) were significantly more likely to positively identify the suspect presented to them at a show up (Eisen, Skerrit-Perta, et al, 2017; Eisen, Smith, et al, 2017). This finding was replicated in the present study: True believers were significantly more likely than doubters to make suspect identifications when show ups were used, χ 2 (1, 382) = 8.76, p < .01.…”

Section: Methodssupporting

confidence: 65%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Self Cite

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: Methodssupporting

confidence: 65%

“…This experiment compared identifications made when using show ups and lineups under field versus lab conditions. This was accomplished using the field-simulation paradigm (Eisen, Skerrit-Perta, et al, 2017; Eisen, Smith, et al, 2017). Participants witnessed what they were led to believe was an actual theft of a laptop computer.…”

Section: Show Ups Versus Lineupsmentioning

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

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Because showups are conducted in the field during which search-and-detain operations are actively unfolding, care should be taken to ensure that witnesses do not overhear police radio conversations that could prejudice a showup procedure. In an experiment using a high-realism paradigm for studying showup identifications, overhearing the suggestion that the sheriff had caught the guy significantly increased false identifications from showups but did not affect accurate culprit identifications (Eisen, Skerrit-Perta, Jones, Owen, & Cedre, 2017).…”

Section: Reducing the Suggestiveness Of Showupsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Policy and procedure recommendations for the collection and preservation of eyewitness identification evidence.

Wells

Kovera

Douglass

et al. 2020

Law and Human Behavior

207

390

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Witnesses can be influenced during their interactions with police before the video recorder is even turned on during a lineup procedure. Eisen et al (2017) conducted a field simulation experiment in which witnesses overheard officer communications prior to the identification procedure that "they caught the guy." This comment increased response latency (time viewing the suspect) and increased false identifications.…”

Section: Administrator Behaviormentioning

confidence: 99%

In their own words: Verbalizations of real eyewitnesses during identification lineups.

Steblay¹,

Wells²

2023

Psychology, Public Policy, and Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Audio recordings of real eyewitnesses from double-blind lineup sessions in real police investigations are described for two samples: 102 choosers and 162 non-choosers. Blind evaluators coded eyewitness verbalizations. Eyewitnesses' comments should convey the underlying decision processes associated with their identification decisions. Deliberative comments were expected to be more common from eyewitnesses who made affirmative identification errors (filler picks), and automatic comments were expected from witnesses who made suspect identifications. As predicted, the verbalization of an automatic decision was 1.45 times more likely to involve a suspect selection than a filler selection, and more than twice as many filler identifications (known errors) involved deliberative comments than did suspect identifications. Suspect identifiers were 1.51 times more likely to exclusively use holistic verbalizations than filler identifiers. Analysis of witnesses who did not choose from the lineup indicated that at least 18% of non-choosers provided exculpatory evidence through a definitive lineup rejection. An intriguing finding was that holistic face recognition (with or without mention of facial features) was voiced by 90% of choosers with only 10% noting a feature(s) alone. In contrast, 48% of non-choosers commented on a specific facial feature(s) alone without mention of holistic recognition, and 70% of these comments noted the absence of the feature. Affirmative identifications and non-identifications may involve different processes for witness consideration of facial features. The project provides evidence that eyewitness verbal comments are a promising means to understand an eyewitness's experience and underscores recent calls for videotaped eyewitness interviews as policy for evidence collection.

show abstract

Pre‐admonition Suggestion in Live Showups: When Witnesses Learn that the Cops Caught ‘the’ Guy

Cited by 4 publications

References 13 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.

Policy and procedure recommendations for the collection and preservation of eyewitness identification evidence.

In their own words: Verbalizations of real eyewitnesses during identification lineups.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About