Evaluating lineup fairness: Variations across methods and measures

Triers of fact sometimes consider lineup fairness when determining the suggestiveness of an identification procedure. Likewise, researchers often consider lineup fairness when comparing results across studies. Despite their importance, lineup fairness measures have received scant empirical attention and researchers inconsistently conduct and report mock-witness tasks and lineup fairness measures. We conducted a large-scale, online experiment (N = 1010) to examine how lineup fairness measures varied with mock-witness task methodologies as well as to explore the validity and reliability of the measures. In comparison to descriptions compiled from multiple witnesses, when individual descriptions were presented in the mock-witness task, lineup fairness measures indicated a higher number of plausible lineup members but more bias towards the suspect. Target-absent lineups were consistently estimated to be fairer than target-present lineups-which is problematic because it suggests that lineups containing innocent suspects are less likely to be challenged in court than lineups containing guilty suspects. Correlations within lineup size measures and within some lineup bias measures indicated convergent validity and the correlations across the lineup size and lineup bias measures demonstrated discriminant validity. The reliability of lineup fairness measures across different descriptions was low and reliability across different sets of mock witnesses was moderate to high, depending on the measure. Researchers reporting lineup fairness measures should specify the type of description presented, the amount of detail in the description, and whether the mock witnesses viewed target-present and/or -absent lineups.div_PaS41pub4364pub

Examining how lineup practices of Canadian and U.S. police officers adhere to their national best practice recommendations

Canadian (N = 117) and U.S. (N = 167) police officers completed a survey about their lineup construction and administration practices. We compared their responses to national policy recommendations in both countries, which had five similar and four different recommendations. We expected that if officers' lineup procedures corresponded with policy recommendations, the countries would have similar procedures when recommendations were similar, but different procedures in line with their respective policies when recommendations were different. We generally found the predicted pattern of results. Findings were especially striking when the policies differed. Some procedures were largely in line with policy recommendations (e.g., double-blind testing), others corresponded to some extent (e.g., sequential lineups), and others were largely not followed (e.g., providing instruction that it is as important to exonerate the innocent as it is to convict the guilty). We cautiously interpret these findings as demonstrating that policy has some influence on procedures. However, even though our hypotheses were generally supported, there was considerable variation in procedures that did not correspond with policy recommendations. Our findings illustrate the importance of assessing user reactions to policy recommendations and examining barriers to policy implementation.http://themanitobalawjournal.com/div_PaSpub5199pu

Impact of disguise on identification decisions and confidence with simultaneous and sequential lineups

Jamal Mansour - ORCID: 0000-0001-7162-8493 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7162-8493This article is a corrected version of a previous version that was retracted, “Impact of Disguise on Identification Decisions and Confidence With Simultaneous and Sequential Lineups” by Jamal K. Mansour, Jennifer L. Beaudry, Michelle I. Bertrand, Natalie Kalmet, Elisabeth I. Melsom, & Roderick C. L. Lindsay (Law and Human Behavior, 2012, Vol. 36, No. 6, 513–526. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093937). Retraction notice: (https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000435)Objective: Prior research indicates disguise negatively affects lineup identifications but the mechanisms by which disguise works have not been explored and different disguises have not been compared. We investigated how two different types of disguise, four levels of varying degrees of coverage, and lineup type influence eyewitnesses' identification decisions, accuracy, and confidence. Hypotheses: We predicted that identification accuracy would decrease as the disguise covered more of a perpetrator's face. We also predicted that type of disguise–stocking mask versus sunglasses and/or toque (i.e., knitted hat)–would influence identifications, but we had conflicting predictions about which disguise would impair their performance more. Method: In two experiments (Ns = 87 and 91) we manipulated degree of coverage by two different types of disguise: a stocking mask or sunglasses and toque. Participants viewed mock-crime videos followed by simultaneous or sequential lineups. Results and Conclusions: Disguise and lineup type did not interact. In support of the view that disguise prevents encoding, identification accuracy generally decreased with degree of disguise. For the stocking disguise, however, full and 2/3 coverage led to approximately the same rate of correct identifications—which suggests that disrupting encoding of specific features may be as detrimental as disrupting a whole face. Accuracy was most affected by sunglasses and we discuss the role meta-cognitions may have played. Lineup selections decreased more slowly than accuracy as coverage by disguise increased, indicating witnesses are insensitive to the effect of encoding conditions on accuracy.This research was supported in part by a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada to Roderick C. L. Lindsay (Grant 410-09-2674).https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb000042744pubpub

Impact of disguise on identification decisions and confidence with simultaneous and sequential lineups

Prior research indicates that disguise negatively affects lineup identifications, but the mechanisms by which disguise works have not been explored, and different disguises have not been compared. In two experiments (Ns = 87 and 91) we manipulated degree of coverage by two different types of disguise: a stocking mask or sunglasses and toque (i.e., knitted hat). Participants viewed mock-crime videos followed by simultaneous or sequential lineups. Disguise and lineup type did not interact. In support of the view that disguise prevents encoding, identification accuracy generally decreased with degree of disguise. For the stocking disguise, however, full and 2/3 coverage led to approximately the same rate of correct identifications---which suggests that disrupting encoding of specific features may be as detrimental as disrupting a whole face. Accuracy was most affected by sunglasses and we discuss the role metacognitions may have played. Lineup selections decreased more slowly than accuracy as coverage by disguise increased, indicating witnesses are insensitive to the effect of encoding conditions on accuracy. We also explored the impact of disguise and lineup type on witnesses' confidence in their lineup decisions, though the results were not straightforward

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

Purpose People tend to believe eyewitness testimony and have difficulty assessing the accuracy of eyewitness identifications. This study examines observers' perceptions of eyewitness identifications made under various line-up presentation and administration conditions. We also investigate whether observers' ability to discriminate between accurate and inaccurate identifications is enhanced by viewing video-recorded identification decisions rather than eyewitness testimony. Methods Each participant (N = 432) viewed a video of an accurate or inaccurate eyewitness providing testimony and/or making an identification decision. Identifications were obtained from simultaneous or sequential line-ups conducted under double-blind, single-blind, or post-identification feedback administration conditions. Results Exposure to eyewitness testimony was associated with a bias to believe the evidence; exposure to the identification decision eliminated the response bias, however, it did not improve observer sensitivity to identification accuracy. Viewing the identification decision resulted in greater belief of accurate than inaccurate identifications when eyewitnesses chose from simultaneous - but not sequential - line-ups. Regardless of evidence type or identification accuracy, observers were more likely to believe eyewitnesses who received confirmatory post-identification feedback compared to the non-feedback conditions. Conclusions Presenting a video record of the identification decision neither improved observers' ability to discriminate between accurate and inaccurate eyewitness identifications nor reduced belief of identifications obtained from suggestive procedures. Further research is warranted before presenting video-recorded identification procedures in court. 2013 The British Psychological Society.div_PaS20pub3981pub

The impact of multiple show-ups on eyewitness decision-making and innocence risk

If an eyewitness rejects a show-up, police may respond by finding a new suspect and conducting a second show-up with the same eyewitness. Police may continue finding suspects and conducting show-ups until the eyewitness makes an identification (Study 1). Relatively low criterion-setting eyewitnesses filter themselves out of the multiple show-ups procedure by choosing the first suspect with whom they are presented (Studies 2 and 3). Accordingly, response bias was more stringent on the second show-up when compared with the first, but became no more stringent with additional show-ups. Despite this stringent shift in response bias, innocence risk increased with additional show-ups,

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

People tend to believe eyewitness testimony and have difficulty assessing the accuracy of eyewitness identifications. This study examines observers' perceptions of eyewitness identifications made under various line-up presentation and administration conditions. We also investigate whether observers' ability to discriminate between accurate and inaccurate identifications is enhanced by viewing video-recorded identification decisions rather than eyewitness testimony. Each participant (N=432) viewed a video of an accurate or inaccurate eyewitness providing testimony and/or making an identification decision. Identifications were obtained from simultaneous or sequential line-ups conducted under double-blind, single-blind, or post-identification feedback administration conditions. Results Exposure to eyewitness testimony was associated with a bias to believe the evidence; exposure to the identification decision eliminated the response bias, however, it did not improve observer sensitivity to identification accuracy. Viewing the identification decision resulted in greater belief of accurate than inaccurate identifications when eyewitnesses chose from simultaneous - but not sequential - line-ups. Regardless of evidence type or identification accuracy, observers were more likely to believe eyewitnesses who received confirmatory post-identification feedback compared to the non-feedback conditions. Conclusions Presenting a video record of the identification decision neither improved observers' ability to discriminate between accurate and inaccurate eyewitness identifications nor reduced belief of identifications obtained from suggestive procedures. Further research is warranted before presenting video-recorded identification procedures in court