The rule out procedure: A signal-detection-informed approach to the collection of eyewitness identification evidence.

Smith, Andrew M.; Ayala, Nydia T.; Ying, Rebecca C.

doi:10.1037/law0000373

Cited by 10 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 59 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The rule-out procedure uses the typical lineup procedure, but after making an identification or rejecting the lineup, the eyewitness is asked to individually assess each nonchosen lineup member (this would be the whole lineup when the lineup is rejected). Thus, this procedure results in data regarding how confidently the eyewitness was able to rule out each nonchosen lineup member (Ayala et al, 2022; Smith & Ayala, 2021; Smith et al, 2022). This procedure would allow meaningful analyses of rejections in field studies because researchers could compare confidence in rejections for fillers and confidence in rejections for suspects.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Eyewitness confidence and decision time reflect identification accuracy in actual police lineups.

Quigley‐McBride¹,

Wells²

2023

Law and Human Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Although there are many lab-based studies demonstrating the utility of confidence and decision time as indicators of eyewitness accuracy, there is almost no research on how well these variables function for lineups in the real world. In two experiments, we examined confidence and decision time associated with real lineups that had been conducted using research-based recommendations. Hypotheses: We expected that how confident an eyewitness sounded and how quickly that eyewitness made their identification would be associated with whether that eyewitness identified a suspect or a filler. We also hypothesized that people’s interpretations of eyewitness confidence could be easily influenced by additional, biasing information. Method: Using audio recordings of these lineups, we examined (a) participants’ subjective ratings of how confident an eyewitness sounded at the time of the identification and (b) objective data regarding how quickly the eyewitness made the identification decision. We also manipulated what additional information, if any, eyewitnesses received in Experiment 2. Results: In both experiments, decision time and confidence predicted whether the eyewitnesses identified the suspect or a known-innocent filler, and when decision time and confidence diverged, it is likely that the eyewitness identified a filler. In Experiment 2, we found that people’s interpretations of eyewitness’s confidence statements could be biased. When observers believed that the witness picked a filler rather than a suspect, or vice versa, this changed how confident they thought the witness sounded. Conclusions: Confidence and decision time should both be collected when administering real lineups, but objective decision time data may be the most useful because people’s perceptions of confidence are easily altered.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Eyewitness confidence and decision time reflect identification accuracy in actual police lineups.

Quigley‐McBride¹,

Wells²

2023

Law and Human Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A recent innovation for police lineups is the Rule-Out Procedure (Smith et al, 2023). Smith and colleagues employed a modified lineup in which participants were asked after their identification decision to go back and rate each lineup member as to their confidence that each is not the perpetrator.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

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

“…To significantly reduce the number of people wrongfully convicted (and incarcerated), we must reduce the rate at which mistaken witness identifications are made and introduced into evidence. To date, efforts to reduce mistaken identifications have primarily focused on identifying new and improved methods of collecting eyewitness evidence (e.g., Ayala et al., 2022; Brewer & Doyle, 2021; Smith et al., 2023; Yilmaz et al., 2022). There is no doubt that efforts to find new identification procedures that enable witnesses to make more accurate identification decisions are worthwhile.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of suspect development practices in eyewitness identification accuracy and racial disparities in wrongful conviction

Kovera

2023

Social Issues Policy Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article reviews the three previously studied categories of variables that are related to eyewitness identification accuracy: estimator (characteristics of the witnessing conditions), system (characteristics of the identification procedure that are under the control of the criminal legal system), and reflector (variables that reflect the likely accuracy of a witness). Although eyewitness scholars frequently turn to these variables and models of memory to explain why eyewitnesses make mistakes, none of these variables provides a reasonable explanation for the large racial disparities in wrongful convictions based on mistaken identifications, yet problematic policing practices might. The policies and practices guiding police efforts to develop suspects as well as the decisions of officers to place a suspect at risk of misidentification determine the base‐rate of innocent suspects that appear in identification procedures. Current police practices—from developing suspects based on hunches, through facial recognition technology, or by pressuring reluctant witnesses to make identifications—increase the likelihood that innocent suspects will be placed in lineups. An increase in lineups with innocent suspects increases the ratio of mistaken to correct identifications without changes in witness performance. Requirements for evidence‐based suspicion, video recording identification procedures, and prohibiting coercive interviewing techniques with reluctant witnesses are recommended for reducing the effect of unreliable suspect development methods on eyewitness evidence.

show abstract

The rule out procedure: A signal-detection-informed approach to the collection of eyewitness identification evidence.

Cited by 10 publications

References 59 publications

Eyewitness confidence and decision time reflect identification accuracy in actual police lineups.

Eyewitness confidence and decision time reflect identification accuracy in actual police lineups.

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

The role of suspect development practices in eyewitness identification accuracy and racial disparities in wrongful conviction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About