Dance Like No One’s Watching: the Influence of Demand Characteristics When Examining Lineups via Computer or In-Person
Lineup administrators may inadvertently bias an eyewitness’ identification; as such, the blind-lineup administration is recommended to combat this bias. Three studies examined eyewitness identification accuracy when the lineup is presented on a computer versus in-person to determine whether computer-administrated lineups could replace in-person lineups to ensure blind administration. Study 1 (N = 378) varied whether the administration was on a computer versus in-person across the simultaneous, elimination, and wildcard procedures. Overall, participants were more accurate when presented with the online administration; moreover, participants were more accurate in target-absent lineups when presented with a simultaneous or elimination procedure compared to the wildcard procedure. Study 2 (N = 367) was similar to study 1 but used different stimuli and included the simultaneous, elimination, and elimination-plus procedures. Identification accuracy was comparable for online and in-person administration. Study 3 (N = 219) sought to examine why online administration was superior in study 1 by varying whether the researcher was present only during the identification task. When the researcher was present, participants were more likely to make a foil identification in the simultaneous procedure compared to the elimination procedure. The results of these three studies suggest that computer-administrated lineups may be a feasible solution to ensure blind administration.
KeywordsEyewitness identification Blind administration Online administration Lineup procedure Administrator bias
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- Clark S, Howell R, Davey S (2008) Regularities in eyewitness identification. Law Hum Behav 32:187–3218. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-006-9082-4
- Innocence Project (2018). Eyewitness misidentification. Retrieved on February 8, 2018 from https://www.innocenceproject.org/causes/eyewitness-misidentification/
- MacLin O, Meissner C, Zimmerman L (2005) PC_Eyewitness: A computerized framework for the administration and practical application of research in eyewitness psychology. Behav Res Methods 37:423–334Google Scholar
- Pica, E., & Pozzulo, J. (2017a). The elimination-plus lineup: testing a modified lineup procedure with confidence. J Invest Psychol Offender Profiling Advance online publication doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/jip.1477, 14, 294, 306
- Pica, E., & Pozzulo, J. (2017b). Younger and older adult eyewitness identification: a comparison of the simultaneous, elimination, and wildcard procedures. Psychiatry, Psychology, and Law. Advance Online Publication. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2017.1364614, 25, 106, 123
- Pozzulo JD, Dempsey J, Corey S, Girardi A, Lawandi A, Aston C (2008) Can a lineup procedure designed for child witnesses work for adults? Comparing simultaneous, sequential, and elimination lineup procedures. J Appl Soc Psychol 38:2195–2209. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00387.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Sheahan, C., Pica, E., Pozzulo, J., & Nastasa, C. (2017). Eyewitness recall and identification abilities of old-adolescents and young-adults. J Appl Dev Psychol Advance Online Publication doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2017.09.008, 53, 86, 95
- Short J, Williams E, Christie B (1976) The social psychological of telecommunications. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Hoboken, NJGoogle Scholar
- Steblay NK, Dysart JE, Wells GL (2011) Seventy-two tests of the sequential lineup superiority effect: a meta-analysis and policy discussion. Psychol Public Policy Law 17:99–193. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021650