Literature DB >> 10810840

Selecting foils for identification lineups: matching suspects or descriptions?

J L Tunnicliff1, S E Clark.   

Abstract

Two experiments directly compare two methods of selecting foils for identification lineups. The suspect-matched method selects foils based on their match to the suspect, whereas the description-matched method selects foils based on their match to the witness's description of the perpetrator. Theoretical analyses and previous results predict an advantage for description-matched lineups both in terms of correctly identifying the perpetrator and minimizing false identification of innocent suspects. The advantage for description-matched lineups should be particularly pronounced if the foils selected in suspect-matched lineups are too similar to the suspect. In Experiment 1, the lineups were created by trained police officers, and in Experiment 2, the lineups were constructed by undergraduate college students. The results of both experiments showed higher suspect-to-foil similarity for suspect-matched lineups than for description-matched lineups. However, neither experiment showed a difference in correct or false identification rates. Both experiments did, however, show that there may be an advantage for suspect-matched lineups in terms of no-pick and rejection responses. From these results, the endorsement of one method over the other seems premature.

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10810840     DOI: 10.1023/a:1005463020252

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Law Hum Behav        ISSN: 0147-7307


  8 in total

1.  Eyewitness recognition errors: the effects of mugshot viewing and choosing in young and old adults.

Authors:  Amina Memon; Lorraine Hope; James Bartlett; Ray Bull
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2002-12

Review 2.  Eyewitness identification evidence and innocence risk.

Authors:  Steven E Clark; Ryan D Godfrey
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2009-02

3.  Optimizing the selection of fillers in police lineups.

Authors:  Melissa F Colloff; Brent M Wilson; Travis M Seale-Carlisle; John T Wixted
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2021-02-23       Impact factor: 11.205

4.  Using objective measures to examine the effect of suspect-filler similarity on eyewitness identification performance.

Authors:  Geoffrey L McKinley; Daniel J Peterson
Journal:  Cogn Res Princ Implic       Date:  2022-10-22

5.  Effects of cannabis on eyewitness memory: A field study.

Authors:  Annelies Vredeveldt; Steve D Charman; Aukje den Blanken; Maren Hooydonk
Journal:  Appl Cogn Psychol       Date:  2018-04-19

6.  Lineup fairness: propitious heterogeneity and the diagnostic feature-detection hypothesis.

Authors:  Curt A Carlson; Alyssa R Jones; Jane E Whittington; Robert F Lockamyeir; Maria A Carlson; Alex R Wooten
Journal:  Cogn Res Princ Implic       Date:  2019-06-13

7.  Individual differences in eyewitness accuracy across multiple lineups of faces.

Authors:  Andrew J Russ; Melanie Sauerland; Charlotte E Lee; Markus Bindemann
Journal:  Cogn Res Princ Implic       Date:  2018-08-08

8.  The impact of sleep on eyewitness identifications.

Authors:  D P Morgan; J Tamminen; T M Seale-Carlisle; L Mickes
Journal:  R Soc Open Sci       Date:  2019-12-04       Impact factor: 2.963

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.