Eyewitness identification: Information gain from incriminating and exonerating behaviors.

An information-gain approach to the analysis and interpretation of eyewitness identification data is described. The information-gain analysis is grounded in Bayesian statistics, permitting the important role of prior probabilities to be explored. This approach also forces a more complete treatment of the data and reveals important patterns that have escaped previous attention in the eyewitness identification literature. Particularly important is the ability of information-gain analyses to make salient the exonerating value of eyewitness behaviors rather than just their incriminating value. Analyses of sample data sets show how the exonerating value of filler identifications and "not there" responses can actually exceed the incriminating value of identifications of the suspect at certain points in the distribution of prior probabilities.

[1]  R. C. L. Lindsay,et al.  Default values in eyewitness descriptions , 1994 .

[2]  Gary L. Wells,et al.  Guidelines for empirically assessing the fairness of a lineup , 1979 .

[3]  Gary L. Wells,et al.  Eyewitness identification and the selection of distracters for lineups , 1991 .

[4]  B. J. Winer.  Statistical Principles in Experimental Design , 1992 .

[5]  S. Penrod,et al.  Improving the reliability of eyewitness identification: Lineup construction and presentation. , 1988 .

[6]  A. G. Goldstein,et al.  Frequency of eyewitness identification in criminal cases: A survey of prosecutors , 1989 .

[7]  D. Eddy.  Judgment under uncertainty: Probabilistic reasoning in clinical medicine: Problems and opportunities , 1982 .

[8]  Anders Winman,et al.  Calibration and diagnosticity of confidence in eyewitness identification: Comments on what can be inferred from the low confidence-accuracy correlation , 1996 .

[9]  Enhancing lineup identification accuracy: two codes are better than one. , 1989 .

[10]  R. Malpass,et al.  From the lab to the police station. A successful application of eyewitness research. , 2000, The American psychologist.

[11]  A. Levi.  Are Defendants Guilty If They Were Chosen in a Lineup? , 1998 .

[12]  R. Malpass,et al.  Eyewitness Identification Procedures: Recommendations for Lineups and Photospreads , 1998 .

[13]  Gary L. Wells,et al.  Improving eyewitness identifications from lineups: Simultaneous versus sequential lineup presentation. , 1985 .

[14]  Gary L. Wells,et al.  The selection of distractors for eyewitness lineups , 1993 .

[15]  R. Dawes.  The purpose of experiments: Ecological validity versus comparing hypotheses , 1996, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[16]  J SWETS,et al.  Decision processes in perception. , 1961, Psychological review.

[17]  D. Wright,et al.  Comparing system and estimator variables using data from real line‐ups , 1996 .

[18]  R. Lindsay,et al.  What price justice? , 1980 .

[19]  Roy S. Malpass,et al.  Eyewitness identification: Lineup instructions and the absence of the offender. , 1981 .

[20]  Saul M. Kassin,et al.  On the "general acceptance" of eyewitness testimony research. A new survey of the experts. , 2001, American Psychologist.

[21]  G. Wells.  Applied eyewitness-testimony research: System variables and estimator variables. , 1978 .

[22]  G. Wells,et al.  What do we know about eyewitness identification? , 1993, The American psychologist.

[23]  A. Tversky,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 1974, Science.

[24]  S. Clark,et al.  Selecting Foils for Identification Lineups: Matching Suspects or Descriptions? , 2000, Law and human behavior.

[25]  A. Tversky,et al.  On the psychology of prediction , 1973 .

[26]  G. Wells,et al.  Eyewitness identification: The importance of lineup models. , 1986 .

[27]  S. L. Sporer,et al.  Eyewitness identification accuracy, confidence, and decision times in simultaneous and sequential lineups , 1993 .

[28]  R. Lindsay,et al.  Sequential lineup presentation : technique matters , 1991 .

[29]  J. Koehler.  The base rate fallacy reconsidered: Descriptive, normative, and methodological challenges , 1996, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[30]  R. Lindsay,et al.  On Estimating the Diagnosticity of Eyewitness Nonidentifications , 1980 .