Estimating the reliability of eyewitness identifications from police lineups

Significance In contrast to prior research, recent studies of simulated crimes have reported that (i) eyewitness confidence can be a strong indicator of accuracy and (ii) traditional simultaneous lineups may be diagnostically superior to sequential lineups. The significance of our study is that these issues were investigated using actual eyewitnesses to a crime. Recent laboratory trends were confirmed: Eyewitness confidence was strongly related to accuracy, and simultaneous lineups were, if anything, diagnostically superior to sequential lineups. These results suggest that recent reforms in the legal system, which were based on the results of older research, may need to be reevaluated. Laboratory-based mock crime studies have often been interpreted to mean that (i) eyewitness confidence in an identification made from a lineup is a weak indicator of accuracy and (ii) sequential lineups are diagnostically superior to traditional simultaneous lineups. Largely as a result, juries are increasingly encouraged to disregard eyewitness confidence, and up to 30% of law enforcement agencies in the United States have adopted the sequential procedure. We conducted a field study of actual eyewitnesses who were assigned to simultaneous or sequential photo lineups in the Houston Police Department over a 1-y period. Identifications were made using a three-point confidence scale, and a signal detection model was used to analyze and interpret the results. Our findings suggest that (i) confidence in an eyewitness identification from a fair lineup is a highly reliable indicator of accuracy and (ii) if there is any difference in diagnostic accuracy between the two lineup formats, it likely favors the simultaneous procedure.

[1]  Nancy K. Steblay,et al.  Eyewitness Accuracy Rates in Sequential and Simultaneous Lineup Presentations: A Meta-Analytic Comparison , 2001, Law and human behavior.

[2]  Nancy K. Steblay,et al.  Seventy-two tests of the sequential lineup superiority effect: A meta-analysis and policy discussion. , 2011 .

[3]  Neil Brewer,et al.  The confidence-accuracy relationship in eyewitness identification: effects of lineup instructions, foil similarity, and target-absent base rates. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[4]  Gary L. Wells,et al.  "Good, you identified the suspect": Feedback to eyewitnesses distorts their reports of the witnessing experience. , 1998 .

[5]  J. Swets.  ROC analysis applied to the evaluation of medical imaging techniques. , 1979, Investigative radiology.

[6]  Comparing the diagnostic accuracy of suspect identifications made by actual eyewitnesses from simultaneous and sequential lineups in a randomized field trial , 2015 .

[7]  David G. Dobolyi,et al.  Eyewitness confidence in simultaneous and sequential lineups: a criterion shift account for sequential mistaken identification overconfidence. , 2013, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[8]  N. Brewer,et al.  The Effect of Retention Interval on the Confidence–Accuracy Relationship for Eyewitness Identification , 2010, Law and human behavior.

[9]  Curt A. Carlson,et al.  An evaluation of lineup presentation, weapon presence, and a distinctive feature using ROC analysis , 2014 .

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

[11]  J A Swets,et al.  Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems. , 1988, Science.

[12]  J. Wixted,et al.  Initial eyewitness confidence reliably predicts eyewitness identification accuracy. , 2015, The American psychologist.

[13]  Neil Brewer,et al.  The confidence-accuracy relationship for eyewitness identification decisions: Effects of exposure duration, retention interval, and divided attention. , 2013, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[14]  Steven D. Penrod,et al.  Witness confidence and witness accuracy: Assessing their forensic relation. , 1995 .

[15]  Caren M. Rotello,et al.  ROC curve analyses of eyewitness identification decisions: An analysis of the recent debate , 2016, Cognitive research: principles and implications.

[16]  S. L. Davey,et al.  Eyewitness Identification in Actual Criminal Cases: An Archival Analysis , 2001, Law and human behavior.

[17]  Neil A. Macmillan,et al.  Detection Theory: A User's Guide , 1991 .

[18]  Nancy K. Steblay,et al.  Double-blind photo lineups using actual eyewitnesses: an experimental test of a sequential versus simultaneous lineup procedure. , 2015, Law and human behavior.

[19]  L B Lusted,et al.  Signal detectability and medical decision-making. , 1971, Science.

[20]  J. Dunn.  Remember-know: a matter of confidence. , 2004, Psychological review.

[21]  John T Wixted,et al.  Receiver operating characteristic analysis of eyewitness memory: comparing the diagnostic accuracy of simultaneous versus sequential lineups. , 2012, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[22]  J. Wixted.  Dual-process theory and signal-detection theory of recognition memory. , 2007, Psychological review.

[23]  Scott D. Gronlund,et al.  Showups versus lineups: An evaluation using ROC analysis , 2012 .

[24]  Neil A. Macmillan,et al.  Detection theory: A user's guide, 2nd ed. , 2005 .

[25]  C. Stark,et al.  The neuroscience of memory: implications for the courtroom , 2013, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[26]  T. Albright.  Why eyewitnesses fail , 2017, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[27]  Bruce W. Behrman,et al.  Suspect/Foil Identification in Actual Crimes and in the Laboratory: A Reality Monitoring Analysis , 2005, Law and human behavior.