Probative Value of Absolute and Relative Judgments in Eyewitness Identification

It is well-accepted that eyewitness identification decisions based on relative judgments are less accurate than identification decisions based on absolute judgments. However, the theoretical foundation for this view has not been established. In this study relative and absolute judgments were compared through simulations of the WITNESS model (Clark, Appl Cogn Psychol 17:629–654, 2003) to address the question: Do suspect identifications based on absolute judgments have higher probative value than suspect identifications based on relative judgments? Simulations of the WITNESS model showed a consistent advantage for absolute judgments over relative judgments for suspect-matched lineups. However, simulations of same-foils lineups showed a complex interaction based on the accuracy of memory and the similarity relationships among lineup members.

[1]  E. Sagarin,et al.  Convicted but Innocent: Wrongful Conviction and Public Policy , 1996 .

[2]  S. Clark,et al.  Eyewitness identification evidence and innocence risk , 2009, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[3]  Steven E. Clark,et al.  A memory and decision model for eyewitness identification , 2003 .

[4]  Ray Pike,et al.  Comparison of convolution and matrix distributed memory systems for associative recall and recognition. , 1984 .

[5]  R. Malpass,et al.  EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATION , 2005 .

[6]  Anthony N. Burkitt,et al.  Computer-Simulation Methods , 1990 .

[7]  J. Ogloff.  Two Steps Forward and One Step Backward , 2004 .

[8]  R. Malpass,et al.  Sequential vs. Simultaneous Lineups: A Review of Methods, Data, and Theory. , 2006 .

[9]  G. Wells.  The Psychology of Lineup Identifications1 , 1984 .

[10]  Gerd Gigerenzer,et al.  Reasoning the Fast and Frugal Way , 2002 .

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

[12]  Scott D. Gronlund,et al.  Sequential lineup advantage: contributions of distinctiveness and recollection , 2005 .

[13]  Roy S. Malpass,et al.  A NATIONAL SURVEY OF US POLICE ON PREPARATION AND CONDUCT OF IDENTIFICATION LINEUPS , 2004 .

[14]  Distinguishing accurate from inaccurate eyewitness identifications via inquiries about decision processes , 1994 .

[15]  S. Clark,et al.  The Target-to-Foils Shift in Simultaneous and Sequential Lineups , 2005, Law and human behavior.

[16]  R. Shiffrin,et al.  Search of associative memory. , 1981 .

[17]  Curt A Carlson,et al.  Exploring the Sequential Lineup Advantage Using WITNESS , 2010, Law and human behavior.

[18]  Curt A Carlson,et al.  Lineup composition, suspect position, and the sequential lineup advantage. , 2008, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[19]  S. Lewandowsky,et al.  Verbalizing facial memory: criterion effects in verbal overshadowing. , 2004, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

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

[21]  S. Stevenage,et al.  Simultaneous and sequential lineups: Decision processes of accurate and inaccurate eyewitnesses. , 2001 .

[22]  Otto H MacLin,et al.  Eyewitness decisions in simultaneous and sequential lineups: A dual-process signal detection theory analysis , 2005, Memory & cognition.

[23]  A. Rattner.  Convicted but innocent , 1988 .

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

[25]  Rod C. L. Lindsay,et al.  Alternatives to the sequential lineup: the importance of controlling the pictures. , 1999, The Journal of applied psychology.

[26]  J. P. Ogloff.  Two Steps Forward and One Step Backward: The Law and Psychology Movement(s) in the 20th Century , 2000, Law and human behavior.

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

[28]  G Gigerenzer,et al.  Reasoning the fast and frugal way: models of bounded rationality. , 1996, Psychological review.

[29]  J. Read,et al.  The Handbook of Eyewitness Psychology: Volume II : Memory for People , 2007 .

[30]  S. Clark,et al.  Selecting Lineup Foils in Eyewitness Identification Experiments: Experimental Control and Real-World Simulation , 2001, Law and human behavior.

[31]  A. Tversky.  Features of Similarity , 1977 .

[32]  N. Brewer,et al.  Multiple confidence estimates as indices of eyewitness memory. , 2008, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

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

[34]  Police Lineups: Making Eyewitness Identification More Reliable , 2007 .

[35]  Jennifer E. Dysart,et al.  Show-up Identifications: Suggestive Technique or Reliable Method? , 2006 .

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

[37]  Otto H. MacLin,et al.  Eyewitness : A computerized framework for the administration and practical application of research in eyewitness psychology , 2005 .

[38]  J. Swets,et al.  A decision-making theory of visual detection. , 1954, Psychological review.

[39]  B. Murdock.  A Theory for the Storage and Retrieval of Item and Associative Information. , 1982 .

[40]  Peter Neufeld,et al.  Actual Innocence : Five Days to Execution and Other Dispatches from the Wrongly Convicted , 2000 .

[41]  J A Swets,et al.  Psychological Science Can Improve Diagnostic Decisions , 2000, Psychological science in the public interest : a journal of the American Psychological Society.

[42]  Curt A. Carlson,et al.  Robustness of the sequential lineup advantage. , 2009, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[43]  Samuel R. Gross,et al.  Exonerations in the United States, 1989 through 2003 , 2005 .

[44]  S. Gronlund,et al.  Global matching models of recognition memory: How the models match the data , 1996, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

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

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

[47]  Reid Hastie,et al.  A computer simulation of jury decision making. , 1980 .

[48]  S. Clark,et al.  Lineup administrator influences on eyewitness identification decisions. , 2009, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[49]  Douglas L. Hintzman,et al.  Judgments of frequency and recognition memory in a multiple-trace memory model. , 1988 .

[50]  R. Shiffrin,et al.  A model for recognition memory: REM—retrieving effectively from memory , 1997, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[51]  C. Davies,et al.  Wrongful imprisonment;: Mistaken convictions and their consequences , 1973 .

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

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

[54]  R. Lindsay.  Applying applied research: selling the sequential line‐up , 1999 .

[55]  Are accurate witnesses more likely to make absolute judgments? , 2008, International journal of law and psychiatry.

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

[57]  Ryan T. Howell,et al.  Regularities in Eyewitness Identification , 2008, Law and human behavior.

[58]  Garold Stasser,et al.  Computer simulation methods for social psychology. , 2000 .