Lineup identification in young and older witnesses: does describing the criminal help or hinder?
-
Published:2022-06-17
Issue:1
Volume:7
Page:
-
ISSN:2365-7464
-
Container-title:Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Cogn. Research
Author:
Holdstock Juliet S.,Dalton Polly,May Keith A.,Boogert Stewart,Mickes Laura
Abstract
AbstractThe world population is getting older and, as a result, the number of older victims of crime is expected to increase. It is therefore essential to understand how ageing affects eyewitness identification, so procedures can be developed that enable victims of crime of all ages to provide evidence as accurately and reliably as possible. In criminal investigations, witnesses often provide a description of the perpetrator of the crime before later making an identification. While describing the perpetrator prior to making a lineup identification can have a detrimental effect on identification in younger adults, referred to as verbal overshadowing, it is unclear whether older adults are affected in the same way. Our study compared lineup identification of a group of young adults and a group of older adults using the procedure that has consistently revealed verbal overshadowing in young adults. Participants watched a video of a mock crime. Following a 20-min filled delay, they either described the perpetrator or completed a control task. Immediately afterwards, they identified the perpetrator from a lineup, or indicated that the perpetrator was not present, and rated their confidence. We found that describing the perpetrator decreased subsequent correct identification of the perpetrator in both young and older adults. This effect of verbal overshadowing was not explained by a change in discrimination but was consistent with participants adopting a more conservative criterion. Confidence and response time were both found to predict identification accuracy for young and older groups, particularly in the control condition.
Funder
Economic and Social Research Council
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Cognitive Neuroscience,Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
Reference75 articles.
1. Alogna, V. K., Attaya, M. K., Aucoin, P., Bahník, Š, Birch, S., Birt, A. R., Bornstein, B. H., Bouwmeester, S., Brandimonte, M. A., Brown, C., Buswell, K., Carlson, C., Carlson, M., Chu, S., Cislak, A., Colarusso, M., Colloff, M. F., Dellapaolera, K. S., Delvenne, J.-F., & Zwaan, R. A. (2014). Registered Replication Report: Schooler and Engstler-Schooler (1990). Perspectives on Psychological Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614545653 2. Anastasi, J. S., & Rhodes, M. G. (2006). Evidence for an own-age bias in face recognition. North American Journal of Psychology, 8(2), 237–252. 3. Anwyl-Irvine, A. L., Massonnié, J., Flitton, A., Kirkham, N., & Evershed, J. K. (2020). Gorilla in our midst: An online behavioral experiment builder. Behavior Research Methods, 52(1), 388–407. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-019-01237-x 4. Brewer, N., Caon, A., Todd, C., & Weber, N. (2006). Eyewitness identification accuracy and response latency. Law and Human Behavior, 30(1), 31–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-006-9002-7 5. Brewer, N., & Wells, G. (2006). The Confidence-accuracy relationship in eyewitness identification: Effects of lineup instructions, foil similarity, and target-absent base rates. Journal of Experimental Psychology Applied, 12, 11–30. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-898X.12.1.11
|
|