Law and Human Behavior

, Volume 32, Issue 5, pp 406–422 | Cite as

On the Diagnosticity of Multiple-Witness Identifications

Original Article

Abstract

It is not uncommon for there to be multiple eyewitnesses to a crime, each of whom is later shown a lineup. How is the probative value, or diagnosticity, of such multiple-witness identifications to be evaluated? Previous treatments have focused on the diagnosticity of a single eyewitness’s response to a lineup (Wells and Lindsay, Psychol. Bull. 3 (1980) 776); however, the results of eyewitness identification experiments indicate that the responses of multiple independent witnesses may often be inconsistent. The present paper calculates response diagnosticity for multiple witnesses and shows how diagnostic probabilities change across various combinations of consistent and inconsistent witness responses. Multiple-witness diagnosticity is examined across variation in the conditions of observation, lineup composition, and lineup presentation. In general, the diagnostic probabilities of guilt were shown to increase with the addition of suspect identifications and decrease with the addition of nonidentifications. Foil identification results were more complicated-diagnostic of innocence in many cases, but nondiagnostic or diagnostic of innocence in biased lineups. These analyses illustrate the importance of securing clear records of all witness responses, rather than myopically focusing on the witness who identified the suspect while ignoring those witnesses who did not.

Keywords

Eyewitness identification Legal decision making 

References

  1. Brandon, R., & Davies, C. (1973). Wrongful imprisonment. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  2. Clark, S.E., & Godfrey, R. (2007). Why eyewitnesses make mistakes and jurors believe them. Paper presented at Off the Witness Stand: Using Psychology in the Practice of Justice, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  3. Clark, S.E., Howell, R.T., & Davey, S. (2007). Regularities in eyewitness identification. Law & Human Behavior. Retrieved May 7, 2007 from http://www.springerlink.com.
  4. Clark, S. E., Hori, A., Putnam, A., & Martin, T. P. (2000). Group collaboration in recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 26, 1578–1588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clark, S. E. (2003). A memory and decision model for eyewitness identification. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 629–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clark, S. E. (2005). A re-examination of the effects of biased lineup instructions in eyewitness identification. Law & Human Behavior, 29, 395–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clark S. E., & Tunnicliff, J. L. (2001). Selecting lineup foils in eyewitness identification experiments: experimental control and real-world simulation. Law & Human Behavior, 25, 199–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Douglass, A. B., Smith, C., & Frasher-Thill, R. (2005). A problem with double-blind photospread procedures: Photospread administrators use one eyewitness’s confidence to influence the identification of another eyewitness. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 543–562.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Findlay, K. A., & Scott, M. S. (2006). The multiple dimensions of tunnel vision in criminal cases. Wisconsin Law Review, 2006, 291–398.Google Scholar
  10. Gabbert, F., Memon, A., & Allan, K. (2003). Memory conformity: Can eyewitnesses influence each other’s memories for an event? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 533–543.Google Scholar
  11. Greenwald, A. (1975). Consequences of prejudice against the null hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 82, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gross, S. R., Jacoby, K., Matheson, D. J., Montgomery, N., & Patil, S. (2005). Exonerations in the United States 1989 through 2003. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 95, 523–560.Google Scholar
  13. Gross., S. R., & Thompson, J. (2005). Memo to Saul Green, Attorney for Walter Moss. Re: The Murder of Quinton Moss on June 26, 1980, in the City of St. Louis, Missouri (dated June 10, 2005).Google Scholar
  14. Haw R. M., Fisher, R. P. (2004). Effects of administrator–witness contact on eyewitness identification accuracy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 1106–1112.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Juslin, P., Olsson, N., Winman, A. (1996). Calibration and diagnosticity of confidence in eyewitness identification: Comments on what can be inferred from the low confidence–accuracy correlation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 22, 1304–1316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kellstrand, E. B. (2006). Eyewitness identification accuracy in cases accepted and rejected for prosecution: An archival analysis of criminal case files, Unpublished Manuscript. San Diego: University of California.Google Scholar
  17. Krafka, C., & Penrod, S. (1985). Reinstatement of context in a field experiment on eyewitness identification. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 49, 58–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Leippe, M. R. (1985). The influence of eyewitness nonidentifications on mock-jurors’ judgements of a court case. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 15, 656–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Levi, A. M. (1998). Are defendants guilty if they were chosen in a lineup? Law and Human Behavior, 22, 389–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lindsay, R. C. L., Martin, R., & Webber, L. (1994). Default values in eyewitness descriptions: A problem for the match-to-description lineup foil selection strategy. Law & Human Behavior, 18, 527–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lindsay, R. C., & Wells, G. L. (1980). What price justice? Exploring the relationship of lineup fairness to identification accuracy. Law & Human Behavior, 4, 303–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Malpass, R. S. (1981). Effective size and defendant bias in eyewitness identification lineups. Law and Human Behavior, 5, 299–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Manson v. Braithwaite (1977). 432 U.S. 98.Google Scholar
  24. McAllister, H. A., & Bregman, N. J. (1986). Juror underutilization of eyewitness nonidentifications: Theoretical and practical implications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 168–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Memon, A., Hope, L., & Bull, R. (2003). Exposure duration: Effects on eyewitness accuracy and confidence. British Journal of Psychology, 94, 339–354.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Morgan, C. A., Hazlett, G., Doran, A., Garrett, S., Hoyt, G., Thomas, P., Baranoski, M., & Southwick, S. M. (2004). Accuracy of eyewitness memory for persons encountered during exposure to highly intense stress. International Journal of Law & Psychiatry, 3, 265–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Neil v. Biggers (1972). 409 U.S. 188.Google Scholar
  28. Nettles, B., Nettles, Z. S., & Wells, G. L. (1996). I noticed you paused on number three. Biased testing in eyewitness identification. Champion, Nov. pp 10–12, 57–59.Google Scholar
  29. Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2, 175–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Paley, B., & Geiselman, R. E. (1989). The effects of alternative photospread instructions on suspect identification performance. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 7, 3–13.Google Scholar
  31. Paterson, H. M., & Kemp, R. I. (2006). Co-witness talk: A survey of eyewitness discussion. Psychology, Crime, & Law, 12, 181–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Roediger, H. L, III, Meade, M. L., & Bergman, E. T. (2001). Social contagion of memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 365–371.Google Scholar
  33. Sanders, G. S., & Warnick, D. H. (1981). Truth and consequences: The effect of responsibility on eyewitness behavior. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 2, 67–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sanders, G. S., & Warnick, D. H. (1982). Evaluating identification evidence from multiple eyewitnesses. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 12, 182–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sobel, N. R. (1979). Eyewitness identification: Legal and practical problems (2nd ed.). New York: Boardman.Google Scholar
  36. Steblay, N. M. (1997). Social influence in eyewitness recall: A meta-analytic review of lineup instruction effects. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 283–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tollestrup, P. A., Turtle, J. W., & Yuille, J. C. (1994). Actual victims and witnesses to robbery and fraud: An archival analysis. In D. F. Ross, J. D. Read, & M. P. Toglia (Eds.), Adult eyewitness testimony: Current trends and developments (pp. 144–160). New York: Cambridge.Google Scholar
  38. Tunnicliff, J. L, & Clark, S. E. (2000). Selecting foils for identification lineups: Matching suspects or descriptions? Law & Human Behavior, 24, 231–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. U.S. v. Telfaire. (1972) 152 U.S. App. D.C. 146; 469 F.2d 552.Google Scholar
  40. Warnick, D. H., & Sanders, G. S. (1980). Why do witnesses make so many mistakes? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10, 362–366.Google Scholar
  41. Wells, G. L. (1988). Eyewitness identification: A system handbook. Toronto: Carswell Legal Publications.Google Scholar
  42. Wells, G. L., & Bradfield, A. L. (1998). “Good, you identified the suspect”: Feedback to eyewitnesses distorts their reports of the witnessing experience. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 360–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wells, G. L., Leippe, M. R., & Ostrom, T. M. (1979). Guidelines for empirically assessing the fairness of a lineup. Law and Human Behavior, 3, 285–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wells, G. L., & Lindsay, R. C. (1980). On estimating the diagnosticity of eyewitness nonidentifications. Psychological Bulletin, 3, 776–784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wells, G. L., & Olson, E. A., (2002). Eyewitness identification: Information gain from incriminating and exonerating behaviors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 3, 155–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wells, G. L., Rydell, S. M., & Seelau, E. P. (1993). The selection of distractors for eyewitness lineups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 835–844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wells, G. L., Small, M., Penrod, S., Malpass, R. S., Fulero, S. M., & Brimacombe, C. A. E. (1998). Eyewitness identification procedures: Recommendations for lineups and photospreads. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 603–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wells, G. L., & Turtle, J. W. (1986). Eyewitness identification: The importance of lineup models. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 320–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wright, D. B., Mathews, S. A., & Skagerberg, E. M. (2005). Social recognition memory: The effect of other people’s responses for previously seen and unseen items. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 11, 200–209.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wright, D. B., & McDaid, A. T. (1996). Comparing system and estimator variables using data from real line-ups. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, 75–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Yuille, J. C., & Tollestrup, P. A. (1992). A model of the diverse effects of emotion on eyewitness memory. In S.-A. Christianson (Ed.) The handbook of emotion and memory: Research and theory (pp. 201–215). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© American Psychology-Law Society/Division 41 of the American Psychological Association 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Psychology DepartmentUniversity of California, RiversideRiversideUSA
  2. 2.Iowa State UniversityAmesUSA

Personalised recommendations