Age Differences in Lineup Identification Accuracy: People Are Better with Their Own Age

Previous research has reported that young adults are better at eyewitness face recognition than are older adults. However, these studies have used young adults as culprits and fillers. We explore how the relative ages of the witness and the culprit influence eyewitness accuracy in 2 experiments. In the first experiment, young (18–25 years old) and older (35–55 years old) adults each saw 4 crime videos. In 2 the culprit was a young adult and in 2 the culprit was an older adult. Participants were more accurate at identifying the culprit when viewing culprit present lineups comprising people of their own age: an “own age bias” analogous to the own race bias. In the 2nd experiment, using a similar procedure, young (18–33 years old) and older (40–55 years old) adults viewed both culprit present and culprit absent lineups. The results of the first experiment were replicated for the culprit present lineups. However, no own age bias was found for the culprit absent lineups. Implications for police procedures dealing with cross-generation identifications are discussed.

[1]  C. Tredoux,et al.  A field study of own-race bias in South Africa and England. , 2001 .

[2]  J. Bartlett,et al.  Aging and memory for pictures of faces. , 1989, Psychology and aging.

[3]  Graham J Hole,et al.  Factors influencing young children’s ability to discriminate unfamiliar faces by age , 2000 .

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

[5]  C. Tredoux,et al.  Inter-racial Contact and the Own-race Bias for Face Recognition in South Africa and England , 2003 .

[6]  J. Swets.  Indices of discrimination or diagnostic accuracy: their ROCs and implied models. , 1986, Psychological bulletin.

[7]  J. A. List.  Age and schematic differences in the reliability of eyewitness testimony. , 1986 .

[8]  J. Bartlett,et al.  Age differences in accuracy and choosing in eyewitness identification and face recognition , 1999, Memory & cognition.

[9]  J. Brigham,et al.  Thirty years of investigating the own-race bias in memory for faces: A meta-analytic review , 2001 .

[10]  W. Kintsch,et al.  Memory and cognition , 1977 .

[11]  C. Adams-Price.  Eyewitness memory and aging: predictors of accuracy in recall and person recognition. , 1992, Psychology and aging.

[12]  C. Tredoux.  Statistical Inference on Measures of Lineup Fairness , 1998 .

[13]  J. Bartlett,et al.  Aging and memory for faces versus single views of faces , 1986, Memory & cognition.

[14]  N. Goldman,et al.  Improved estimation procedures for multilevel models with binary response: a case‐study , 2001 .

[15]  Steven D. Penrod,et al.  The external validity of eyewitness identification research: Generalizing across subject populations , 1989 .

[16]  Gary L. Wells,et al.  Stimulus Sampling and Social Psychological Experimentation , 1999 .

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

[18]  A. D. Yarmey.  Adult Age and Gender Differences in Eyewitness Recall in Field Settings1 , 1993 .

[19]  C. Tredoux.  Statistical considerations when determining measures of lineup size and lineup bias , 1999 .

[20]  Elizabeth A. Olson,et al.  The other-race effect in eyewitness identification: What do we do about it? , 2001 .

[21]  R. Fildes.  Journal of the Royal Statistical Society (B): Gary K. Grunwald, Adrian E. Raftery and Peter Guttorp, 1993, “Time series of continuous proportions”, 55, 103–116.☆ , 1993 .

[22]  Cheryl L Grady,et al.  Changes in memory processing with age , 2000, Current Opinion in Neurobiology.

[23]  J. Schooler,et al.  Verbal overshadowing of visual memories: Some things are better left unsaid , 1990, Cognitive Psychology.

[24]  S. Dumais,et al.  Handbook of applied cognition , 2007 .

[25]  H. Goldstein.  Multilevel Statistical Models , 2006 .

[26]  Adult Eyewitness Testimony: Biased lineups: Where do they come from? , 1994 .

[27]  Noreen Goldman,et al.  An assessment of estimation procedures for multilevel models with binary responses , 1995 .

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

[29]  J. Bartlett,et al.  Influence of post-event narratives, line-up conditions and individual differences on false identification by young and older eyewitnesses , 2000 .

[30]  Steven D. Penrod,et al.  CHOOSING, CONFIDENCE, AND ACCURACY : A META-ANALYSIS OF THE CONFIDENCE-ACCURACY RELATION IN EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATION STUDIES , 1995 .

[31]  Daniel B. Wright,et al.  Modelling Clustered Data in Autobiographical Memory Research: The Multilevel Approach , 1998 .

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

[33]  G. H. Lunney,et al.  USING ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE WITH A DICHOTOMOUS DEPENDENT VARIABLE: AN EMPIRICAL STUDY , 1970 .

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

[35]  A. G. Goldstein,et al.  Recognition memory for infant faces: An analog of the other-race effect , 1986 .

[36]  Daniel B. Wright,et al.  Extra-binomial variation in multilevel logistic models with sparse structures , 1997 .

[37]  Harvey Goldstein,et al.  Improved Approximations for Multilevel Models with Binary Responses , 1996 .

[38]  S. Mason,et al.  Age and gender as factors in facial recognition and identification. , 1986, Experimental aging research.

[39]  Alvin G. Goldstein,et al.  The other-race effect and eyewitness identification. , 1996 .