Exploration of the Other-Race Recognition Deficit

Existing research regarding the Other-Race Bias (ORB), a phenomenon in which faces of the same race are more accurately recognized than of another race, primarily focuses on when the recognition deficit occurs and not why it occurs. The current research was designed to investigate what processing components are responsible for the ORB through the use of a sequential sampling model, the EZ diffusion model. Accuracy and reaction time were jointly considered, in addition to traditional measures of performance, to evaluate recognition decisions made about same race and other race faces. Emotion and face orientation were also manipulated to differentiate what type of processing, configural or featural, is recruited. The results indicated that recognition differences occur because of the quality of information available in memory and not a response bias. Furthermore, the use of configural or featural processing may not be able to explain the differences in processing for SR and OR faces. Research needs to continue to seek explanations of the ORB

ROCs in Eyewitness Identification:Instructions versus Confidence Ratings

From the perspective of signal-detection theory, different lineup instructions may induce different levels of response bias (Clark, 2005). If so, then collecting correct and false identification rates across different instructional conditions will trace out the ROC – the same ROC that, theoretically, could also be traced out from a single instruction condition in which each eyewitness decision is accompanied by a confidence rating. We tested whether the two approaches do in fact yield the same ROC. Participants were assigned to a confidence rating condition or to an instructional biasing condition (liberal, neutral, unbiased, or conservative). After watching a video of a mock crime, participants were presented with instructions followed by a 6-person simultaneous photo lineup. The ROCs from both methods were similar, but they were not exactly the same. These findings have potentially important policy implications for how the legal system should go about controlling eyewitness response bias

The truth about snitches: an archival analysis of informant testimony

Informants are witnesses who often testify in exchange for an incentive (i.e. jailhouse informant, cooperating witness). Despite the widespread use of informants, little is known about the circumstances surrounding their use at trial. This study content-analyzed trials from 22 DNA exoneration cases involving 53 informants. Because these defendants were exonerated, the prosecution informant testimony is demonstrably false. Informant characteristics including motivation for testifying, criminal history, relationship with the defendant and testimony were coded. Most informants were prosecution jailhouse informants; however, there were also defence jailhouse informants and prosecution cooperating witnesses. Regardless of informant type, most denied receiving an incentive, had criminal histories, were friends/acquaintances of the defendant and had testimonial inconsistencies. In closing statements, attorneys relied on informant testimony by either emphasizing or questioning its reliability. The impact of informant testimony on jurors’ decisions is discussed in terms of truth-default theory (TDT), the fundamental attribution error and prosecutorial vouching

The truth about snitches: an archival analysis of informant testimony

Informants are witnesses who often testify in exchange for an incentive (i.e. jailhouse informant, cooperating witness). Despite the widespread use of informants, little is known about the circumstances surrounding their use at trial. This study content-analyzed trials from 22 DNA exoneration cases involving 53 informants. Because these defendants were exonerated, the prosecution informant testimony is demonstrably false. Informant characteristics including motivation for testifying, criminal history, relationship with the defendant and testimony were coded. Most informants were prosecution jailhouse informants; however, there were also defence jailhouse informants and prosecution cooperating witnesses. Regardless of informant type, most denied receiving an incentive, had criminal histories, were friends/acquaintances of the defendant and had testimonial inconsistencies. In closing statements, attorneys relied on informant testimony by either emphasizing or questioning its reliability. The impact of informant testimony on jurors’ decisions is discussed in terms of truth-default theory (TDT), the fundamental attribution error and prosecutorial vouching

ROCs in Eyewitness Identification: Instructions vs. Confidence Ratings

From the perspective of signal-detection theory, different lineup instructions may induce different levels of response bias (Clark, 2005). If so, then collecting correct and false identification rates across different instructional conditions will trace out the ROC – the same ROC that, theoretically, could also be traced out from a single instruction condition in which each eyewitness decision is accompanied by a confidence rating. We tested whether the two approaches do in fact yield the same ROC. Participants were assigned to a confidence rating condition or to an instructional biasing condition (liberal, neutral, unbiased, or conservative). After watching a video of a mock crime, participants were presented with instructions followed by a 6-person simultaneous photo lineup. The ROCs from both methods were similar, but they were not exactly the same. These findings have potentially important policy implications for how the legal system should go about controlling eyewitness response bias