Abstract
AbstractMistaken eyewitness identifications continue to be a major contributor to miscarriages of justice. Previous experiments have suggested that implicit identification procedures such as the Concealed Information Test (CIT) might be a promising alternative to classic lineups when encoding conditions during the crime were favorable. We tested this idea by manipulating view congruency (frontal vs. profile view) between encoding and test. Participants witnessed a videotaped mock theft that showed the thief and victim almost exclusively from frontal or profile view. At test, viewing angle was either congruent or incongruent with the view during encoding. We tested eyewitness identification with the RT-CIT (N = 74), and with a traditional simultaneous photo lineup (N = 97). The CIT showed strong capacity to diagnose face recognition (d = 0.91 [0.64; 1.18]), but unexpectedly, view congruency did not moderate this effect. View congruency moderated lineup performance for one of the two lineups. Following these unexpected findings, we conducted a replication with a stronger congruency manipulation and larger sample size. CIT (N = 156) showed moderate capacity to diagnose face recognition (d = 0.63 [0.46; 0.80]) and now view congruency did moderate the CIT effect. For lineups (N = 156), view congruency again moderated performance for one of the two lineups. Capacity for diagnosing face recognition was similar for lineups and RT-CIT in our first comparison, but much stronger for lineups in our second comparison. Future experiments might investigate more conditions that affect performance in lineups vs. the RT-CIT differentially.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous),Developmental and Educational Psychology,Experimental and Cognitive Psychology,General Medicine
Reference50 articles.
1. Brackmann, N., Sauerland, M., & Otgaar, H. (2019). Developmental trends in lineup performance: Adolescents are more prone to innocent bystander misidentifications than children and adults. Memory and Cognition, 47, 428–440. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-018-0877-6
2. Burton, A. M. (2013). Why has research in face recognition progressed so slowly? The importance of variability. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66, 1467–1485. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2013.800125
3. Clark, S. E., Howell, R. T., & Davey, S. L. (2008). Regularities in eyewitness identification. Law and Human Behavior, 32, 187–218. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-006-9082-4
4. Christianson, S. A., Goodman, J., & Loftus, E. F. (1992). Eyewitness memory for stressful events: Methodological quandaries and ethical dilemmas. The handbook of emotion and memory: Research and theory (pp. 217–241). L. Erlbaum Associates.
5. Colloff, M. F., Seale-Carlisle, T. M., Karoğlu, N., Rockey, J. C., Smith, H. M. J., Smith, L., Maltby, J., Yaremenko, S., & Flowe, H. D. (2021). Perpetrator pose reinstatement during a lineup test increases discrimination accuracy. Scientific Reports, 11, 13830. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-92509-0