Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology

, Volume 27, Issue 2, pp 167–178 | Cite as

Identity-Lineup Location Influences Target Selection: Evidence from Eye Movements

  • Ahmed M. Megreya
  • Markus Bindemann
  • Catriona Havard
  • A. Mike Burton
Article

Abstract

Eyewitnesses often have to recognize the perpetrators of an observed crime from identity lineups. In the construction of these lineups, a decision must be made concerning where a suspect should be placed, but whether location in a lineup affects the identification of a perpetrator has received little attention. This study explored this problem with a face-matching task, in which observers decided if pairs of faces depict the same person or two different people (Experiment 1), and with a lineup task in which the presence of a target had to be detected in an identity parade of five faces (Experiment 2). In addition, this study also explored if high accuracy is related to a perceptual pop-out effect, whereby the target is detected rapidly among the lineup. In both experiments, observers’ eye movements revealed that location determines the order in which people were viewed, whereby faces on the left side were consistently viewed first. This location effect was reflected also in observers’ responses, so that a foil face on the left side of a lineup display was more likely to be misidentified as the target. However, identification accuracy was not related to a pop-out effect. The implications of these findings are discussed.

Keywords

Identity lineup Eyewitness accuracy Location Eye movements 

References

  1. Bindemann M (2010) Scene and screen center bias early eye movements in scene viewing. Vis Res 50:2577–2587PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bindemann M, Scheepers C, Ferguson HJ, Burton AM (2010) Face, body and centre of gravity mediate person detection in natural scenes. J Exp Psychol: Human Percept Perform 36:1477–1485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blais C, Jack RE, Scheepers C, Fiset D, Caldara R (2008) Culture shapes how we look at faces. PLoS One 3(8):e3022PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brewer N, Palmer MA (2010) Eyewitness identification tests. Leg Criminol Psychol 15:77–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brewer N, Gordon M, Bond N (2000) Effect of photoarray exposure duration on eyewitness identification accuracy and processing strategy. Psychol Crime Law 6:21–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bruce V, Henderson Z, Greenwood K, Hancock PJB, Burton AM, Miller P (1999) Verification of face identities from images captured on video. J Exp Psychol: Appl 5:339–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burt DM, Perrett DI (1997) Perceptual asymmetries in judgements of facial attractiveness, age, gender, speech and expression. Neuropsychologia 35:685–693PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burton AM, White D, McNeill A (2010) The Glasgow face matching test. Behav Res Method 42:286–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Butler SH, Harvey M (2005) Does inversion abolish the left chimeric face processing advantage? Neuroreport 16:1991–1993PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clark SE, Davey SL (2005) The target-to-foils shift in simultaneous and sequential lineups. Law Human Behav 29:151–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clark SE, Howell RT, Davey SL (2008) Regularities in eyewitness identification. Law Human Behav 32:187–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Coolican J, Eskes GA, McMullen PA, Lecky E (2008) Perceptual biases in processing facial identity and emotion. Brain Cogn 66:176–187PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Costigan R (2007) Identification from CCTV: the risk of injustice. Criminal Law Review, 591-608.Google Scholar
  14. Dunning D, Perretta S (2002) Automaticity and eyewitness accuracy: a 10 to 12 second rule for distinguishing accurate from inaccurate positive identification. J Appl Psychol 87:951–962PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dunning D, Stern LB (1994) Distinguishing accurate from inaccurate eyewitness identifications via inquiries about decision processes. J Personal Soc Psychol 67:818–835CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ericsson KA, Simon HA (1980) Verbal reports as data. Psychol Rev 87:215–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Frowd CD, Hancock PJB, Bruce V, Skelton FC, Atherton C et al (2011) Catching more offenders with EvoFIT facial composites: lab research and police field trials. Global J Human Social Sci 11:46–58Google Scholar
  18. Gibson SJ, Solomon CJ, Maylin MIS, Clark C (2009) New methodology in facial composite construction: from theory to practice. Intern J Electron Secur Digit Forensic 2:156–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gilbert C, Bakan P (1973) Visual asymmetry in perception of faces. Neuropsychologia 11:355–362PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Haxby JV, Hoffman EA, Gobbini MI (2000) The distributed human neural system for face perception. Trend Cogn Sci 4(6):223–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Heath RL, Rouhana A, Ghanem DA (2005) Asymmetric bias in perception of facial affect among roman and Arabic script readers. Laterality 10:51–64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Henderson JM, Williams CC, Falk RJ (2005) Eye movements are functional during face learning. Mem Cognit 33:98–106PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hershler O, Hochstein S (2005) At first sight: a high-level pop out effect for faces. Vis Res 45:1707–1724PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hsiao JH, Cottrell G (2008) Two fixations suffice in face recognition. Psychol Sci 19:998–1006PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hsiao JH, Cottrell GW (2009) Not all visual expertise is holistic, but it may be leftist: the case of Chinese character recognition. Psychol Sci 20:455–463PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hurlburt RT, Heavey CL (2001) Telling what we know: describing inner experience. Trend Cogn Sci 5:400–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Innocence Project (n.d.). Retrieved October 29, 2011, from Innocence Project Website: http://www.innocenceproject.org/
  28. Jenkins R, Burton AM (2008) Limitations in facial identification. Justice Peace 172:4–6Google Scholar
  29. Kneller W, Memon A, Stevenage S (2001) Simultaneous and sequential lineups: decision processes of accurate and inaccurate witnesses. Appl Cogn Psychol 15:659–671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Leach AM, Cutler BL, Wallendael LV (2009) Lineups and eyewitness identification. Annu Rev Law Social Sci 5:157–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Leonards U, Scott-Samuel NE (2005) Idiosyncratic initiation of saccadic face exploration in humans. Vis Res 45:2677–2684PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lindsay PH, Norman DA (1977) Human information processing, 2nd edn. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  33. Mansour JK & Flowe HD (2010) Eyetracking and eyewitness memory. Forensic Update, No. 101.Google Scholar
  34. Mansour JK, Lindsay RCL, Brewer N, Munhall KG (2009) Characterizing visual behaviour in a lineup task. Appl Cogn Psychol 23:1012–1026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Megreya AM, Bindemann M (2009) Revisiting the processing of internal and external features of unfamiliar faces: the head-scarf effect. Perception 38:1831–1848PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Megreya AM, Burton AM (2006a) Recognising faces seen alone or with others: when two heads are worse than one. Appl Cogn Psychol 20:957–972CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Megreya AM, Burton AM (2006b) Unfamiliar faces are not faces: evidence from a matching task. Mem Cognit 34:865–876PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Megreya AM, Burton AM (2007) Hits and false positives in face matching: a familiarity based dissociation. Percept Psychophys 69:1175–1184PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Megreya AM, Burton AM (2008) Matching faces to photographs: poor performance in eyewitness memory (without the memory). J Exp Psychol: Appl 14:364–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Megreya A, Havard C (2011) Left face matching bias: right hemisphere dominance or scanning habits. Lateral: Asymmetries Body, Brain Cogn 16:75–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Meisner CA, Brigham JC (2001) Thirty years of investigating the own-race bias in memory for faces: a meta-analytic review. Psychol Publ Policy Law 7:3–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Memon A, Vrij A, Bull R (2003) Psychology & law: truthfulness, accuracy and credibility of victims, witnesses and suspects. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  43. Mertens I, Siegmund H, Grusser OJ (1993) Gaze motor asymmetries in the perception of faces during a memory task. Neuropsychologia 31:989–998PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Nisbett RE, Wilson TD (1977) Telling more than we can know: verbal reports on mental processes. Psychol Rev 84:231–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rayner K (1998) Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychol Bull 124:372–422PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rhodes G (1985) Lateralized processes in face recognition. Br J Psychol 76:249–271PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ross DF, Benton TR, McDonnell S, Metzger R, Silver C (2007) When accurate and inaccurate eyewitnesses look the same: a limitation of the ‘pop-out’ effect and the 10- to 12-second rule. Appl Cogn Psychol 21:677–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sakhuja T, Gupta GC, Singh M, Vaid J (1996) Reading habits affect asymmetries in facial affect judgements: a replication. Brain Cogn 32:162–164Google Scholar
  49. Sauerland M, Sporer SL (2007) Post-decision confidence, decision time, and self-reported decision processes as postdictors of identification accuracy. Psychol Crime Law 13:611–625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Schwarzer G, Huber S, Dümmler T (2005) Gaze behavior in analytical and holistic face processing. Mem Cognit 33:344–354PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Shapiro P, Penrod S (1986) A meta-analysis of facial identification studies. Psychol Bull 100:139–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Spalek TM, Hammad S (2005) The left-to-right bias in inhibition of return is due to the direction of reading. Psychol Sci 16:15–18PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Treisman AM, Gelade G (1980) A feature-integration theory of attention. Cogn Psychol 12:97–136PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Vaid J, Singh M (1989) Asymmetries in the perception of facial affect: is there an influence of reading habits? Neuropsychologia 27:1277–1287PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wells GL, Small M, Penrod S, Malpass RS, Fulero SM, Brimacombe CAE (1998) Eyewitness identification procedures: recommendations for lineups and photospreads. Law Human Behav 22:1–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wells GL, Memon A, Penrod SD (2006) Eyewitness evidence: improving its probative value. Psychol Sci Public Interest 7:45–75Google Scholar
  57. Yovel G, Tambini A, Brandman T (2008) The asymmetry of the fusiform face area is a stable individual characteristic that underlies the left-visual-field superiority for faces. Neuropsychologia 46:3061–3068PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ahmed M. Megreya
    • 1
    • 2
  • Markus Bindemann
    • 3
  • Catriona Havard
    • 4
  • A. Mike Burton
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyMenoufia UniversityShebin El-KomEgypt
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity College in QunfudahUmm Al-Qura UniversityKingdom of Saudi Arabia
  3. 3.School of PsychologyUniversity of KentCanterburyUK
  4. 4.Department of PsychologyThe Open UniversityMilton KeynesUK
  5. 5.School of PsychologyUniversity of AberdeenAberdeenUK

Personalised recommendations