Amplification Interval and Eyewitness Identifications

ABSTRACT Our study examined the effects of biased and unbiased lineup instructions verbiage on the accuracy of eyewitness identification in a suspect-absent photographic lineup. Seventy subjects were randomly assigned to either a biased instruction condition or an unbiased instruction condition where they watched a mocked crime video, solved word-search puzzles for five minutes, completed a suspect-absent photographic lineup, and then completed an online post-witness experience feedback questionnaire. The unbiased condition utilized photographic lineup instructions from the State Bar of Michigan's Eyewitness Identification Task Force recommended policy writing guide. For the biased condition, the instructions alluded to subjects that the suspect was present. Subjects in the unbiased condition answered correctly 45.7% of the time compared to 28.6% of those in the biased condition. Chi-square test for independence indicated no significant association between the lineup instructions verbiage and the accuracy of eyewitness identification rates. Binomial logistic regression found that the confidence level in the identification choice made, ease of making an identification, decision making time, ability to recognize the lineup appeinstructions, and group condition were not significant predictors of subjects correctly identifying the suspect. Our results would suggest that the verbiage of the lineup instructions does not increase accuracy of eyewitness identifications.

Download Full-text

Fuzzy-Trace Theory, False Memory, and the Law

Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences ◽

10.1177/2372732218797143 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 6 (1) ◽

pp. 79-86 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

C. J. Brainerd ◽

Valerie F. Reyna

Keyword(s):

False Memory ◽

False Memories ◽

Child Witnesses ◽

Trace Theory ◽

Fuzzy Trace Theory ◽

Rules Of Evidence ◽

Scientific Principles ◽

Simple Change ◽

The Law ◽

Eyewitness Identifications

Fuzzy-trace theory (FTT) provides well-researched scientific principles that explain worrisome forms of false memory in the law. False memories are of great legal concern because memory reports are frequently the evidence that determines guilt/innocence and are sometimes the only evidence that crimes have been committed. FTT’s principles reveal errors in commonsense theories that jurors use to judge the credibility of witnesses’ memory reports. This science versus commonsense disconnect is salient in cases involving child witnesses, eyewitness identifications, and confessions. The consequences of this disconnect for justice could be ameliorated by a simple change in federal rules of evidence.

Download Full-text