Week - E/W Identification

Question 1

What is the function of a lineup?

Answer 1

To determine the extent to which the witness recognises the suspect.

This is distinctly different from getting them to PICk our subject (we can do this very easily).

Question 2

Descriptions provide recall information which leads to …

Answer 2

a suspect

Question 3

The idea of a lineup is that it will provide information from what?

Answer 3

recognition memory

Question 4

What are the two questions we ask in a lineup?

Answer 4

1. Does the witness recognise the suspect

2. Does ID info increase.decrease the probability that the suspect is the offender?

Question 5

Is it easy to manipulate things to get the witness to pick a certain person?

Answer 5

YES

Question 6

The outcome of matching process influenced by what? (2)

Answer 6

1. quality of EW memory

2. characteristics of the lineup/task

Question 7

What are 3 important points about the determinants of identification reliability?

Answer 7

1. Not about the accuracy of individual IDs
2. consideration of factors that increase/decrease reliability or informational value
3. ask how informative is this ID? What does it tell us?

Question 8

What influences viewing conditions in encoding, when assessing the determinants of identification reliability?

Answer 8

• duration
• distance
• others?

Question 9

What influences divided attention in encoding, when assessing the determinants of identification reliability?

Answer 9

-weapon focus (memory of suspect decreases, focus on gun)

Question 10

How is memory storage affected when determining identification reliability?

Answer 10

Length of retention interval

• memory fades over time
• suggestibility (news reports, friend recount)

Question 11

When testing memory storage in determining identification reliability, what are some differences in the lab vs. real world?

Answer 11

In the lab, retention usually around 15 minutes. In the real world, it’s 6 weeks on average (way longer than we are studying in the lab).

Question 12

how long is too long with retention rates? Describe two studies:

Answer 12

1. Sauer: ID accuracy 62% (immediate) vs 47% (about 3 weeks)

2. Read et al: Suspect IDs at 9 months?

Question 13

Describe how offender variables is a determinant of identification reliability?

Answer 13

Changed appearance

• natural change
• ‘deliberate natural’
• distinctiveness

Question 14

How does changed appearance of the offender affect ID accuracy?

Answer 14

Charman and Wells looked at natural change over 4 years. Used student ID photos. Overall, a failure to identify the culprit increased. Correct identification decreased, and incorrect rejections (misses) were greatly increased.

Question 15

In a study where only hair colour was changed in ID, what was found?

Answer 15

Rejections skyrocketed.

Question 16

How does distinctiveness affect identification, as an offender variable?

Answer 16

encoding:
-attention (grabs our attention)
-distinctive components
Retrieval: 
-reduced confusability

Question 17

What are two factors we need to take into consideration when accounting for distinctive features in lineups?

Answer 17

Replication (photoshop tattoos etc) vs. concealment.

Question 18

Which did a study find was better for a lineup, when accounting for distinctive features?

Answer 18

Replication will have a higher recognition.

Question 19

What are some common witness assumptions before a lineup? (2)

Answer 19

1. The police have a suspect

2. The police’s suspect is probably guilty (or some compelling evidence)

Question 20

What is the problem with a witness’ assumption that the police suspect is probably guilty and in the lineup?

Answer 20

It creates compelling pressure for the witness to pick someone, they feel that is their role. The problem is that usually, no-one jumps out in a lineup. They may instead seek external cues (looking for cues)

Question 21

What are some examples of environmental/experimenter cues in a police lineup?

Answer 21

• body language, suggestion, etc
• intentional or (more often) unintentional
• perceiving cues that aren’t there

Question 22

What are some recommended lineup administration techniques to reduce bias’ in lineups?

Answer 22

1. double blind

2. unbiased instructions

Question 23

What is involved in a double blind lineup?

Answer 23

1. witness shouldn’t know who the suspect is

2. administrator should not know who the suspect is

Question 24

What are some problems with double blind method?

Answer 24

1. might be difficult to find an officer who is not blind to the conditions
2. hard to find someone on the street who can
3. officer might not want to give over case to someone else, wants it to run well as invested

Question 25

What do unbiased instructions hope to reduce?

Answer 25

the pressure to pick

Question 26

What are some examples of potential instructional biases?

Answer 26

- instructions that state/imply that culprit is present - emphasise importance of making positive ID - absence of 'not present' option "culprit may or may not be in the lineup"

Question 27

What is functional size referring to in a lineup?

Answer 27

The number of plausible candidates in the lineup.

Question 28

What was the case of lineup with black/white people?

Answer 28

Not enough plausible black people, so they used white people, painted them but left their hands white.

Question 29

What is match description?

Answer 29

- description indicates EW memory for culprit - foils must match on described characteristics, but may vary on others - variation helps EW pick bad guys based on memory

Question 30

Researchers generally recommend the match description category over the match similarity - why?

Answer 30

Because if they are too similar, it might make it impossible for the memory task. Similarity approach is vague and undefined, better to be similar on distinct, remembered features.

Question 31

Supporting evidence for match description strategy?

Answer 31

Great theoretical support, limited empirical support.

Question 32

Match description depends on:

Answer 32

The quality of description you get from the eyewitness.

Question 33

What is a potential problem in match descriptions in the quality of descriptions provided?

Answer 33

EWs may not (probably won't) report all they remember (items not cued, difficult to articulate, but may be cued in recognition etc).

Question 34

Is match description of match similarity prefered?

Answer 34

MD generally favoured, but a bit of both might be provided.

Question 35

What are some presentation methods in a lineup?

Answer 35

1. the showup (pointing to one photo, was it this guy?) 2. Simultaneous lineup 3. sequential lineups

Question 36

What is the main problem with the showup lineup?

Answer 36

Demand characteristics: presume that the police have other evidence pointing to this guy.

Question 37

What is the main problem with simultaneous lineups?

Answer 37

Absolute vs. relative judgments

Question 38

What are absolute judgments?

Answer 38

Matching the faces against their memory

Question 39

What are relative judgements?

Answer 39

Out of all the people, which one is the best? Can be independent of absolute judgement)

Question 40

Evidence consistent with relative judgements show what?

Answer 40

Similar choosing rates when target present vs. absent. This shows that relative judgements play a substantial role.

Question 41

If people were relying on absolute judgements in EW identification, what would be expect to see?

Answer 41

Choosing rates should be way less than target absent.

Question 42

What is the idea behind sequential lineups?

Answer 42

Push people to make absolute judgements over relative, reduce reliance on relative judgements.

Question 43

What are the effects of sequential lineups?

Answer 43

- lower choosing rates - correct IDs: same or lower - fewer false IDs in target absent lineups - advantage more pronounced if people don't know how many people there are going to be

Question 44

When participants can see how many photos are left in a sequential lineup, you haven't identified anyone and its getting to the end, what happens?

Answer 44

Demand characteristics: pressure to pick someone, so people more likely to.

Question 45

What is discrimination and bias in lineup presentation?

Answer 45

1. How good are we at distinguishing our person from the lineup 2. Do we favour picking someone? Reject someone? Do we do this more often than we should?

Question 46

What did one study find which compared simultaneous vs. sequential lineups, when it comes to discrimination? (study conducted using the signal detection theory)

Answer 46

There was no effect on discrimination (doesn't mean they'll be better).

Question 47

What did one study find which compared simultaneous vs. sequential lineups, when it comes to bias? (study conducted using the signal detection theory)

Answer 47

Sequential lineup led to more conservative responding (less trigger happy choosing)

Question 48

A more recent analysis using the signal detection theory, using ROC data, found what when comparing seq vs. simultaneous lineups, when it comes to discrimination vs. bias?

Answer 48

That simultaneous improves discrimination. This goes against the initial meta analysis.

Question 49

Sequential vs. simultaneous - which one is better?

Answer 49

We don't know. The data shows different things.

Question 50

Does it matter if we use simultaneous or sequentially?

Answer 50

There are things that matter more (double blind). If this is the best we can do, we need to do better.

Question 51

What are two take aways for eyewitness identification?

Answer 51

1. presentation method influences decision strategy and matching process 2. Will interact with other factors (e.g., lineup fairness) to affect reliability of ID evidence

Question 52

Real data shows what with non biased instructions, and double blind administration to do with simultaneous or sequential?

Answer 52

That even in best practise, results were terrible: - Sim: 41% of all chosen were fillers - Seq: 30% of all IDs are fillers

Question 53

Psychologists can't determine ID accuracy, but can talk sensibly about:

Answer 53

reliability

Question 54

EW memory and ID reliability will be shaped by interactions between what? (2)

Answer 54

1. Conditions in which memory was formed | 2. Conditions in which memory was tested

Question 55

Many believe that we should do what with future eyewitness identification?

Answer 55

Step outside the confines of the traditional lineup approach.