Literature DB >> 18253819

How variations in distance affect eyewitness reports and identification accuracy.

R C L Lindsay1, Carolyn Semmler, Nathan Weber, Neil Brewer, Marilyn R Lindsay.   

Abstract

Witnesses observe crimes at various distances and the courts have to interpret their testimony given the likely quality of witnesses' views of events. We examined how accurately witnesses judged the distance between themselves and a target person, and how distance affected description accuracy, choosing behavior, and identification test accuracy. Over 1,300 participants were approached during normal daily activities, and asked to observe a target person at one of a number of possible distances. Under a Perception, Immediate Memory, or Delayed Memory condition, witnesses provided a brief description of the target, estimated the distance to the target, and then examined a 6-person target-present or target-absent lineup to see if they could identify the target. Errors in distance judgments were often substantial. Description accuracy was mediocre and did not vary systematically with distance. Identification choosing rates were not affected by distance, but decision accuracy declined with distance. Contrary to previous research, a 15-m viewing distance was not critical for discriminating accurate from inaccurate decisions.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18253819     DOI: 10.1007/s10979-008-9128-x

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


  7 in total

1.  Improving juror sensitivity to specific eyewitness factors: judicial instructions fail the test.

Authors:  Angela M Jones; Amanda N Bergold; Steven Penrod
Journal:  Psychiatr Psychol Law       Date:  2020-02-13

2.  Identifying criminals: No biasing effect of criminal context on recalled threat.

Authors:  Terence J McElvaney; Magda Osman; Isabelle Mareschal
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2022-01-13

3.  Simulated viewing distance impairs the confidence-accuracy relationship for long, but not moderate distances: support for a model incorporating the role of feature ambiguity.

Authors:  Sara D Davis; Daniel J Peterson
Journal:  Cogn Res Princ Implic       Date:  2022-06-28

4.  Lower-level stimulus features strongly influence responses in the fusiform face area.

Authors:  Xiaomin Yue; Brittany S Cassidy; Kathryn J Devaney; Daphne J Holt; Roger B H Tootell
Journal:  Cereb Cortex       Date:  2010-04-07       Impact factor: 5.357

5.  Line-Up Image Position in Simultaneous and Sequential Line-Ups: The Effects of Age and Viewing Distance on Selection Patterns.

Authors:  Thomas J Nyman; Jan Antfolk; James Michael Lampinen; Julia Korkman; Pekka Santtila
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2020-07-01

6.  Time-of-day effects on eyewitness reports in morning and evening types.

Authors:  Sergii Yaremenko; Melanie Sauerland; Lorraine Hope
Journal:  Psychiatr Psychol Law       Date:  2022-03-09

7.  Effects of distance on face recognition: implications for eyewitness identification.

Authors:  James Michael Lampinen; William Blake Erickson; Kara N Moore; Aaron Hittson
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2014-12
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.