Week Two/Three - Eyewitness Identification Flashcards

1
Q

Two types of evidence for forensic investigations?

A

Physical evidence

witness (victim) evidence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

E/W errors?

A

Incorrect IDs - suspect (may/may not be involved) vs foils (def weren’t involved)

Misses - dont recognise anyone even when guilty suspect in there (incorrect rejection)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Luis Diaz case?

A

7 charges of rape
Evidence: 5 victim IDs, later lineup videos
Defense: no english, wasn’t 6 ft, etc
Served 26 years for a crime he didn’t commit (DNA proved)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Eyewitness identification studies typically involve?

A

• simulated live or video crime
• event systematically manipulated: e.g. exposure time of offender, presence of a weapon, race of offender
• lineup presentation: live, photo array, video array
• target present vs. target absent – as in the real world
• lineup manipulated – number of people, similarity of foils to
suspect, etc.
• archival studies

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Methodological issues (lab)?

A

Lab experiments

  • questionable generalisability to real world (consequences of choices, motivation etc) - no consequences in lab
  • breadth of sampling
  • statistical power considerations
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Methodological issues (variables)?

A

Interactions between variables (not a single variable) determine ID performance

  • encoding stimulus & conditions
  • test stimuli
  • encoding-test match
  • metacognitive variables (beliefs & expectations)
  • social influences
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Function of a lineup?

A

To see if the witness recognises the suspect

and then does the ID info increase/decrease the probability that the suspect is the offender?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Outcome of matching lineup members to memory is influenced by?

A

– quality of EW memory

– characteristics of the lineup/task

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Important factors to remember in E/W ID’s?

A

Its not about accuracy of individual IDs
Need to consider factors that increase/decrease ‘reliability’ or ‘informational value’

Ask: how informative is this ID? What does it tell us? What factors in this case increase the risk of error?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Determinants of identification reliability? ie what determines reliability (MEMORY FACTORS)

A

Memory Factors
ENCODING
- viewing conditions (distance, duration)
- divided attention (weapon focus

STORAGE
- length of retention interval (memory fades over time, suggestibility, lab vs real world)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

ID accuracy immediately vs 3 weeks later?

A

Sauer et al

62% vs 47%

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Determinants of identification reliability? ie what determines reliability (OFFENDER VARIABLES)

A
Offender Variables
CHANGED APPEARANCE (natural change vs deliberate)
- Wells (2007) natural change over 4 years  (as change differs, correct ID's drop, incorrect rejections increase)

DISTINCTIVENESS

  • affects ID (encoding is better due to attention, retrieval is easier)
  • Hard to create a fair lineup (replication vs concealment)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Problem with witness in lineup situations?

A

Witness goes in assuming the bad guys is in the line up

  • results in pressure to identify (feel like they should pick someone)
  • switch to environmental cues (‘experimenter effect’)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Social factors/Demand characteristics?

A

ENVIRONMENTAL/EXPERIMENTAL CUES
- body language, suggestion etc
(intentional or more often unintentional)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

How to reduce environmental/experimental cues?

A

LINEUP ADMINISTRATION

  1. double-blind
  2. unbiased instructions (reduce pressure to pick)
    - ‘culprit may not be present’
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Types of instructional bias?

A

– instructions state/imply that culprit present
– emphasise importance of making a positive ID
– absence of ‘not present’ option

17
Q

Lineup Bias (composition and functional size)

A

Where there is other foils but they don’t match the suspect at all

18
Q

Characteristics of a good lineup?

A

• Unbiased instructions
• Double-blind presentation
• Lineup fairness
– fair/unbiased is good

19
Q

How do we create a “good” lineup?

A

Need a good number of plausible candidates!

20
Q

Lineup composition: selecting foils?

A

Match Description Strategy
– description indicates EW memory for culprit
– foils must match on described characteristics, but
may vary on others
– variation helps EW pick bad guy based on
memory

21
Q

Potential problem of Match Description Strategy?

A

Quality of descriptions provided
– EWs may not (probably won’t) report all they
remember (items not cued, difficult to articulate, etc)

22
Q

Lineup Presentation Methods?

A
  1. The Show Up (is this the guy)
  2. Simultaneous Lineup
  3. Sequential Lineup
23
Q

Simultaneous Lineup problems?

A

Absolute vs. Relative judgements/similarity

  • consequences of relative judgements (maybe none look similar but one is still the most familiar)
  • relatively okay if target is present BUT consequential if not.. why? choosing rates are same when TA vs TP (people choosing next best option)
24
Q

Sequential lineups effects?

A

Promotes absolute judgement and reduces relative

  • Lower choosing rates
  • Correct IDs: same or lower (cf. current research)
  • Fewer false IDs in TA lineups (however increases with backloading)
25
Discrimination VS Bias? SIM vs SEQ
No diff in discrimination for Sim or Seq (ROC analysis says sim better tho) Small sig effect of bias (seq more conservative)
26
Lineup presentation method influences?
decision strategy & matching process Will interact with other factors (e.g., lineup fairness) to affect reliability of ID evidence
27
Confidence and ID accuracy?
``` Confident IDs are persuasive within the criminal justice system • U.S. Supreme Court • surveys of police, lawyers, jurors • mock-juror studies ```
28
Relationship between confidence and accuracy?
as confidence increases, so does accuracy (with choosers)
29
Influences on confidence?
• repeated questioning increases confidence in incorrect ID • preparing witness for cross-examination increases confidence, especially for inaccurate witnesses • telling witness who made false IDs that co-witness identified the same person increases confidence • telling witness who made false IDs that they had identified the suspect increases confidence • post-ID feedback increases confidence of all ID responses
30
Confidence overall?
Systematic, positive CA relation for choosers BUT Only confidence measured immediately after the decision is potentially informative
31
Summary of E/W memory and reliability?
E/W memory & ID reliability will be shaped by (interactions between) 1. Conditions in which memory was formed 2. Conditions in which memory was tested