Does recognition imply guilt? An overview of the factors that influence eyewitness identification performance
Published:
Oct 15, 2020
Keywords:
REyewitnesses Eyewitness identification Estimator variables System variables Postdictors
Abstract
Eyewitness identification stands as one of the core aspects of the judicial system. However, when it comes to identifying faces, people often make mistakes. Thus, it should not come as a surprise that eyewitness identification has been shown to be the number one factor of wrongful convictions (www.innoccenceproject.org). Therefore it is important
to understand the reasons that make eyewitnesses so error prone and investigate how we could enhance their performance. In the present article we examine the factors that have an impact on eyewitness
identification performance. More specifically, we will refer to those variables over which the research community has reached consensus. These include estimator and system variables as well as postdictors,
which are variables capable to diagnose the identification accuracy once it has taken place. In doing so we aim to reveal those parameters that are based on a sturdy research base, but have notwithstanding been
neglected by the Greek judicial system. We suggest a number of alterations and improvements, based on this research basis that can improve identification performance.
Article Details
- How to Cite
-
Σαγανά Ά., & Sauerland, M. (2020). Does recognition imply guilt? An overview of the factors that influence eyewitness identification performance. Psychology: The Journal of the Hellenic Psychological Society, 19(1), 63–79. https://doi.org/10.12681/psy_hps.23608
- Issue
- Vol. 19 No. 1 (2012)
- Section
- THEORETICAL REVIEWS
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
The journal PSYCHOLOGY adopts a Platinum open-access policy. Submission, processing or publication costs are waived by the Hellenic Psychological Society. Papers published in the journal PSYCHOLOGY are licensed under a 'Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International' licence. The authors reserve the copyright of their work and grant the journal the right of its first publication. Third-party licensees are allowed to use the published paper immediately after publication as they wish, provided they retain the defined by the license copyright formalities, regarding the reference to its author(s) and its initial publication in the journal PSYCHOLOGY. Moreover, any adjusted work should be shared under the same reuse rights, so with the same CC license.
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
References
Asch, S.E. (1955). Opinions and social pressure.
Scientific American, 193, 31-35.
Behrman, B.W., & Davey, S.L. (2001). Eyewitness
identification in actual criminal cases: An
archival analysis. Law and Human Behavior,
, 475-491.
Boyce, M.A., Lindsay, D.S., & Brimacombe, C.A.E.
(2008). Investigating investigators: Examining
the impact of eyewitness identification
evidence on student-investigators. Law and
Human Behavior, 32, 439-453.
Bradfield, A.L., Wells, G.L., & Olson, E.A. (2002).
The damaging effect of confirming feedback
on the relation between eyewitness certainty
and identification accuracy. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 87, 112-120.
Brewer, N., Caon, A., Todd, C., & Weber, N.
(2006). Eyewitness identification accuracy and
response latency. Law and Human Behavior,
, 31-50.
Brewer, N., Keast, A., & Rishworth, A. (2002). The
confidence-accuracy relationship in
eyewitness identification: The effects of
reflection and disconfirmation on correlation
and calibration. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Applied, 8, 44-56.
Brewer, N., & Wells, G.L. (2006). The confidenceaccuracy
relationship in eyewitness identi -
fication: Effects of lineup instructions, foil simi -
larity, and target-absent base rates. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Applied, 12, 11-30.
Brigham, J.C., Meissner, C.A., & Wasserman, A.W.
(1999). Applied issues in the construction and
expert assessment of photo lineups. Applied
Cognitive Psychology, 13, 73-92.
Charman, S., & Wells, G.L. (2007). Applied lineup
theory. In R.C.L. Lindsay, D.F. Ross, J.D. Read,
& M.P. Toglia (Eds.), The handbook of
eyewitness psychology, Vol II: Memory for
people (pp. 219-254). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Chiroro, P., & Valentine, T. (1995). An investigation
of the contact hypothesis of the own-race bias
in face recognition. The Quarterly Journal of
Experimental Psychology A: Human Experimen -
tal Psychology, 48, 879-894.
Christianson, S.A. (1984). The relationship
between induced emotional arousal and
amnesia. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology,
, 147-160.
Clark, S.E. (2005). A re-examination of the effects
of biased lineup instructions in eyewitness
identification. Law and Human Behavior, 29,
-604.
Cutler, B.L., Berman, G.L., Penrod, S.D., & Fisher,
R.P. (1994). Conceptual, practical, and
empirical issues associated with eyewitness
identification test media. In D.F. Ross, J.D.
Read & M.P. Toglia (Eds.), Adult eyewitness
testimony: Current trends and developments
(pp. 163-181). New York: Cambridge Univer -
sity Press.
Darling, S., Valentine, T., & Memon, A. (2008).
Selection of lineup foils in operational contexts.
Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 159-169.
Deffenbacher, K.A. (1986). On the memorability of
the human face. In H.D. Ellis, M.A. Jeeves, F.
Newcombe, & A.W. Young (Eds.), Aspects of
face processing (pp. 61-70). Dordrecht:
Martinus Nijhoff.
Deffenbacher, K.A., Bornstein, B.H., McGorty, E.K.,
& Penrod, S.D. (2008). Forgetting the onceseen
face: Estimating the strength of an
eyewitness’s memory representation. Journal
of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 14, 139-
Deffenbacher, K.A., Bornstein, B.H., Penrod, S.D.,
& McGorty, E.K. (2004). A meta-analytic review
of the effects of high stress on eyewitness
memory. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 687-
Doob, A.N., & Kirshenbaum, H. (1973). Bias in
police lineups - Partial remembering. Journal of
Police Science and Administration, 1, 287-293.
Douglass, A.B., & Steblay, N.M. (2006). Memory
distortion in eyewitnesses: A meta-analysis of
the post-identification feedback effect. Applied
Cognitive Psychology, 20, 859-869.
Dunning, D., & Perretta, S. (2002). Automaticity
and eyewitness accuracy: A 10- to 12-second
rule for distinguishing accurate from inaccurate
positive identifications. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 87, 951-962.
Evans, J.R., Marcon, J.L., & Meissner, C.A. (2009).
Cross-racial lineup identification: Assessing the
potential benefits of context reinstatement.
Psychology, Crime & Law, 15, 19-28.
Fisher, R.P. (2010). Interviewing cooperative
Παράγοντες επιρροής της επίδοσης των αυτοπτών μαρτύρων 75
witnesses. Legal and Criminological Psycho -
logy, 15, 25-38.
Greathouse, S.M., & Kovera, M.B. (2009).
Instruction bias and lineup presentation
moderate the effects of administrator
knowledge on eyewitness identification. Law
and Human Behavior, 33, 70-82.
Harris, C.B., Paterson, H.M., & Kemp, R.I. (2008).
Collaborative recall and collective memory:
What happens when we remember together?
Memory, 16, 213-230.
Haw, R.M., & Fisher, R.P. (2004). Effects of
administrator-witness contact on eyewitness
identification accuracy. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 89, 1106-1112.
Johnston, R.A., & Edmonds, A.J. (2009). Familiar
and unfamiliar face recognition: A review.
Memory, 17, 577-596.
Kramer, T.H., Buckhout, R., & Eugenio, P. (1990).
Weapon focus, arousal, and eyewitness
memory: Attention must be paid. Law and
Human Behavior, 14, 167-184.
Leach, A.M., Cutler, B.L., & Van Wallendael, L.
(2009). Lineups and eyewitness Identification.
The Annual Review of Law and Social
Sciences, 5, 157-178.
Levi, A.M. (2002). Up to forty: Lineup size, the
modified sequential lineup, and the sequential
lineup. International Journal of Cognitive
Technology, 7, 39-46.
Levi, A.M. (2011). Much better than the sequential
lineup: a 120-person lineup. Psychology, Crime
& Law, Advance online publication.
Lindsay, R.C., & Wells, G.L. (1985). Improving
eyewitness identifications from lineups:
Simultaneous versus sequential lineup
presentation. Journal of Applied Psychology,
, 556-564.
Loftus, E.F. (1996). Eyewitness Testimony
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Loftus, E.F., Loftus, G.R., & Messo, J. (1987).
Some facts about “weapon focus”. Law and
Human Behavior, 11, 55-62.
Luus, C.E., & Wells, G.L. (1991). Eyewitness
identification and the selection of distracters for
lineups. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 43-57.
Malpass, R.S. (2006). A policy evaluation of
simultaneous and sequential lineups. Psycho -
logy, Public Policy, and Law, 12, 394-418.
Malpass, R.S., & Devine, P.G. (1981). Eyewitness
identification: Lineup instructions and the
absence of the offender. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 66, 482-489.
Malpass, R.S., Lavigueur, H., & Weldon, D.E. (1973).
Verbal and visual training in face recognition.
Perception & Psychophysics, 14, 285-292.
Malpass, R.S., & Lindsay, R.C.L. (1999). Measuring
line-up fairness. Applied Cognitive Psychology,
, 1-7.
Malpass, R.S., Tredoux, C.G., & McQuiston-
Surrett, D. (2009). Public policy and sequential
lineups. Legal and Criminological Psychology,
, 1-12.
Meissner, C.A., & Brigham, J. C. (2001). Thirty
years of investigating the own-race bias in
memory for faces: A meta-analytic review.
Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7, 3-35.
Meissner, C.A., Tredoux, C., Parker, J., & MacLin,
O. (2005). Eyewitness decisions in
simultaneous and sequential lineups: A dualprocess
signal detection theory analysis.
Memory & Cognition, 33, 783-792.
Memon, A., Vrij, A., & Bull, R. (2003). Psychological
factors in eyewitness testimony. In A. Memon,
A. Vrij & R. Bull (Eds.), Psychology and Law:
Truthfulness, Accuracy and Credibility (2nd
edn). Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons
Ltd.
Munsterberg, H. (1908). On the witness stand. New
York: Doubleday.
Penrod, S.D., & Cutler, B. (1995). Witness
confidence and witness accuracy: Assessing
their forensic relation. Psychology, Public
Policy, and Law, 1, 817-845.
Phillips, M.R., McAuliff, B.D., Kovera, M.B., &
Cutler, B.L. (1999). Double-blind photoarray
administration as a safeguard against
investigator bias. Journal of Applied Psycho -
logy, 84, 940-951.
Pickel, K.L. (1999). The influence of context on the
“weapon focus” effect. Law and Human
Behavior, 23, 299-311.
Rosenthal, R. (2002). Covert communication in
classrooms, clinics, courtrooms, and cubicles.
American Psychologist, 57, 839-849.
Sauerland, M., Sagana, A., & Sporer, S. L. (2012).
Postdicting nonchoosers’ eyewitness identifi -
cation accuracy from photographic showups
by using confidence and response times. Law
and Human Behavior, 36, 394-403.
Sauerland, M., & Sporer, S.L. (2009). Fast and
confident: Postdicting eyewitness identification
accuracy in a field study. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Applied, 15, 46-62.
Shapiro, P.N., & Penrod, S.D. (1986). Metaanalysis
of facial identification studies.
Psychological Bulletin, 100, 139-156.
Shaw, J.I., & Skolnick, P. (1999). Weapon focus
and gender differences in eyewitness
accuracy: Arousal versus salience. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 29, 2328-2341.
Sherif, M. (1936). The psychology of social norms.
Oxford England: Harper.
Sporer, S.L. (1992). Post-dicting eyewitness
accuracy: Confidence, decision-times and
person descriptions of choosers and nonchoosers.
European Journal of Social
Psychology, 22, 157-180.
Sporer, S.L., Penrod, S.D., Read, D., & Cutler, B.
(1995). Choosing, confidence, and accuracy:
A meta-analysis of the confidence-accuracy
relation in eyewitness identification studies.
Psychological Bulletin, 118, 315-327.
Steblay, N.K., Dysart, J.E., & Wells, G.L. (2011).
Seventy-two tests of the sequential lineup
superiority effect: A meta-analysis and policy
discussion. Psychology, Public Policy, and
Law, 17, 99-139.
Steblay, N.M. (1992). A meta-analytic review of the
weapon focus effect. Law and Human
Behavior, 16, 413-424.
Steblay, N.M. (1997). Social influence in
eyewitness recall: A meta-analytic review of
lineup instruction effects. Law and Human
Behavior, 21, 283-297.
Steblay, N.M., Dysart, J., Fulero, S., & Lindsay,
R.C.L. (2001). Eyewitness accuracy rates in
sequential and simultaneous lineup
presentations: A meta-analytic comparison.
Law and Human Behavior, 25, 459-473.
Steblay, N.M., Dysart, J., Fulero, S., & Lindsay,
R.C.L. (2003). Eyewitness accuracy rates in
police showup and lineup presentations: A
meta-analytic comparison. Law and Human
Behavior, 27, 523-540.
Valentine, T., & Heaton, P. (1999). An evaluation of
the fairness of police line-ups and video
identifications. Applied Cognitive Psychology,
, 59-72.
Weber, N., & Brewer, N. (2004). Confidenceaccuracy
calibration in absolute and relative
face recognition judgments. Journal of Expe -
rimental Psychology: Applied, 10, 156-172.
Weber, N., Brewer, N., Wells, G.L., Semmler, C.,
& Keast, A. (2004). Eyewitness identification
accuracy and response latency: The unruly 10-
-second rule. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Applied, 10, 139-147.
Wells, G.L. (1978). Applied eyewitness-testimony
research: System variables and estimator
variables. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 36, 1546-1557.
Wells, G.L. (1984). The psychology of lineup
identifications. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 14, 89-103.
Wells, G.L., & Bradfield, A.L. (1998). “Good, you
identified the suspect”: Feedback to
eyewitnesses distorts their reports of the
witnessing experience. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 83, 360-376.
Wells, G.L., & Bradfield, A.L. (1999). Measuring the
goodness of lineups: Parameter estimation,
question effects, and limits to the mock witness
paradigm. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13,
-39.
Wells, G.L., & Luus, C.E. (1990). Police lineups as
experiments: Social methodology as a
framework for properly conducted lineups.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16,
-117.
Wells, G.L., Memon, A., & Penrod, S.D. (2006).
Eyewitness evidence: Improving its probative
value. Psychological Science in the Public
Interest, 7, 45-75.
Wells, G.L., Rydell, S.M., & Seelau, E.P. (1993).
The selection of distractors for eyewitness
lineups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78,
-844.
Wells, G.L., Small, M., Penrod, S.D., Malpass, R.S.,
Solomon, M.F., & Brimacombe, C.A. E. (1998).
Eyewitness identification procedures:
Recommendations for lineups and
photospreads. Law and Human Behavior, 22,
-647.
Wogalter, M.S., Marwitz, D.B., & Leonard, D.C.
(1992). Suggestiveness in photospread lineups:
Similarity induces distinctiveness. Applied
Cognitive Psychology, 6, 443-453.
Wright, D.B., Boyd, C.E., & Tredoux, C.G. (2001).
A field study of own-race bias in South Africa
and England. Psychology, Public Policy, and
Law, 7, 119-133.
Wright, D.B., Memon, A., Skagerberg, E.M., &
Gabbert, F. (2009). When eyewitnesses talk.
Current Directions in Psychological Science,
, 174-178.
Wright, D.B., Self, G., & Justice, C. (2000). Memory
conformity: Exploring misinformation effects
when presented by another person. British
Journal of Psychology, 91, 189-202.
Yonelinas, A.P. (2002). The nature of recollection
and familiarity: A review of 30 years of
research. Journal of Memory and Language,
, 441-517.
