The effect of exposure to multiple lineups on face identification accuracy

Identification Performance During Quarantine by COVID-19 Pandemic: Influence of Emotional Variables and Sleep Quality

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused major disruptions in people's lives around the globe. Sleep habits and emotional balance have been disturbed in a way that could be comparable to the havoc caused by a deep personal crisis or a traumatic experience. This unfortunate situation provides a unique context in which to study the impact of these imbalances on cognitive processes. In particular, the field of eyewitness science could benefit from these conditions, since they are also often present in crime victims, but can only be generated in the laboratory up to a certain ethical and practical limit. For several decades, eyewitness studies have tried to discover what variables affect people's ability to properly recognize faces. However, the disparity of experimental designs and the limitations of laboratory work could be contributing to the lack of consensus around several factors, such as sleep, anxiety, and depression. Therefore, the possibility of observing the influence of these agents in natural contexts could shed light on this discussion. Here, we perform simple and repeated lineups with witnesses of mock-crime, considering the conditions related to the COVID-19 pandemic, which to some extent allow emulating the deterioration in general well-being that often afflicts crime victims. For this, 72 participants completed symptomatology scales, and watched a video portraying a staged violent episode. Subsequently, they gave testimony and participated in two lineups, in which we manipulated the presence/absence of the perpetrator, to recreate critical scenarios for the appearance of false recognitions. We found an increase in recognition errors in those individuals who did not have access to the perpetrator during the Initial lineup. Additionally, the conditions of the pandemic appear to have adversely affected the ability to witness and accurately perform lineups. These results reaffirm the need to move toward the standardization of research practices and methods for assessing testimonial evidence, especially in relation to the results of the lineups. Considering the degree of fallibility of these processes can lead to a reduction of wrongful convictions.

He did it! Or did I just see him on Twitter? Social media influence on eyewitness identification

Eyewitness identification is fallible, and suggestive post-event information is known to facilitate error; however, whether social media valence affects identification decisions is unknown. After viewing crime videos of various race perpetrators, participants saw post-event Twitter photos of the perpetrator or a foil that varied in valence. Participants attempted identification from a lineup including both individuals and rated the confidence and source (i.e., video, Twitter) of their selection. Results showed that Twitter photos of the perpetrator increased the likelihood of accurate identification and related confidence, whereas seeing the foil reduced the likelihood of a correct identification and related confidence. Remembering the perpetrator from the crime influenced correct identification, while remembering other incorrect sources (e.g., Twitter) only lead to misidentification. Twitter valence and perpetrator race did not impact outcomes. Results suggest that difficulty in identifying a perpetrator is underpinned by source monitoring confusion which is exacerbated by viewing social media that includes innocent suspects.

The effects of repeated lineups and delay on eyewitness identification

A significant problem in eyewitness identification occurs when witnesses view a suspect in one venue such as a mugshot and then later in a lineup where the suspect is the only previously viewed person. Prior research has documented that the witness may select the suspect from the lineup due either to misplaced familiarity from seeing the mugshot or to their prior commitment from identifying the suspect from the mugshot. Two experiments attempted to minimize these biases by using repeated identical lineups, such that both targets and fillers were repeated, to determine if such a procedure could be useful. Across two experiments, we also varied the delay between seeing the event and the first lineup, as well as the delay between lineups. Despite the use of identical lineups, we continued to observe the effects of commitment and misplaced familiarity, so our procedure did not remove these problems. In addition, we also found that both repeated lineups and increasing delays can influence people's tendency to choose and their willingness to maintain their decisions, regardless of accuracy. Most importantly, however, despite the negative effects of repeated lineups and the relatively long delays used in our experiments, we obtained strong relations between confidence and accuracy when using confidence-accuracy characteristic plots. High confidence responses were associated with high accuracy.

Feelings of familiarity and false memory for specific associations resulting from mugshot exposure

This research reveals that mugshot viewing accompanied by questions about an action can cause young adults to associate the pictured person and the queried action, leading to later false recollection of having seen that person perform that action. In contrast, mugshot viewing in older adults can lead to vague feelings of familiarity for the pictured person, encouraging older adults to later falsely recognize the pictured person performing any familiar action. Participants viewed events involving actors performing different actions and then were asked verbal questions about which actor had performed each action, with each question accompanied by mugshots of potential "perpetrators" of the action. In a later recognition test, older adults were more likely to falsely recognize a novel conjunction of a familiar actor and action if they had seen a mugshot of that actor, regardless of whether the mugshot had accompanied a question about that action. In contrast, young adults were more likely to falsely recognize a conjunction event only if it involved an actor whose mugshot had accompanied a question about that particular action. This effect remained when the analysis was limited to trials involving actors whose mugshots had not been previously selected, implicating false recollection rather than commitment effects.

Repeated eyewitness identification procedures: memory, decision making, and probative value

Two experiments examined the effects of multiple identification procedures on identification responses, confidence, and similarity relationships. When the interval between first and second identification procedures was long (Experiment 1), correct and false identifications increased, but the probative value of a suspect identification changed little; consistent witnesses were more confident than inconsistent witnesses; and the similarity relationships between suspect and foils were unchanged. When the interval between first and second identification procedures was short (Experiment 2), suspect identification rates changed little, but foil identifications increased significantly; confidence for all identifications increased; consistent witnesses were more confident than inconsistent witnesses; and similarity relationships changed such that witnesses were less likely to identify the suspect as being the best match to the perpetrator.

Suggestive eyewitness identification procedures and the Supreme Court's reliability test in light of eyewitness science: 30 years later

The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling concerning suggestive eyewitness identification procedures (Manson v. Braithwaite, 1977, 432 U.S. 98) has not been revisited by the Court in the intervening 30+ years. Meanwhile, scientific studies of eyewitnesses have progressed and DNA exonerations show that mistaken identification is the primary cause of convictions of the innocent. We analyzed the two-inquiry logic in Manson in light of eyewitness science. Several problems are discussed. Ironically, we note that suggestive identification procedures (determined in the first inquiry) boost the eyewitnesses' standing on three of the five criteria (used in the second inquiry) that are used to decide whether the suggestive procedures were a problem. The net effect undermines safeguards intended by the Court and destroys incentives to avoid suggestive procedures.

Interviewing witnesses: the effect of forced confabulation on event memory

After viewing a crime video, participants answered 16 answerable and 6 unanswerable questions. Those in the "voluntary guess" condition had a "don't know" response option; those in the "forced guess" condition did not. One week later the same questions were answered with a "don't know" option. In both experiments, information generated from forced confabulation was less likely remembered than information voluntarily self-generated. Further, when the same answer was given to an unanswerable question both times, the confidence expressed in the answer increased over time in both the forced and the voluntary guess conditions. Pressing eyewitnesses to answer questions, especially questions repeated thrice (Experiment 2), may not be an effective practice because it reliably increases intrusion errors but not correct recall.