Advertisement

Law and Human Behavior

, Volume 29, Issue 5, pp 543–562 | Cite as

A Problem with Double-Blind Photospread Procedures: Photospread Administrators Use One Eyewitness's Confidence to Influence the Identification of Another Eyewitness

  • Amy Bradfield DouglassEmail author
  • Caroline Smith
  • Rebecca Fraser-Thill
Article

Abstract

In Experiment 1, photospread administrators (PAs, N = 50) showed a target-absent photospread to a confederate eyewitness (CW), who was randomly assigned to identify one photo with either high or low confidence. PAs subsequently administered the same target-absent photospread to participant eyewitnesses (PWs, N = 50), all of whom had viewed a live staged crime 1 week earlier. CWs were rated by the PAs as significantly more confident in the high-confidence condition versus low-confidence condition. More importantly, the confidence of the CW affected the identification decision of the PW. In the low-confidence condition, the photo identified by the CW was identified by the PW significantly more than the other photos; there was no significant difference in photo choice in the high-confidence condition. In spite of the obvious influence exerted in the low-confidence condition, observers were not able to detect bias in the photospread procedures. A second experiment was conducted to test a post-hoc explanation for the results of Experiment 1: PAs exerted influence in the low-confidence condition because they perceived the task as more difficult for the eyewitness than in the high-confidence condition. Independent observers (N = 84) rated the difficulty of the confederate's task as higher in the low-confidence condition compared with the high-confidence condition, suggesting that expectations of task difficulty might be driving the effect observed in Experiment 1. Results support recommendations for double-blind photospreads and emphasize that the same investigator should not administer photo lineups to multiple eyewitnesses in an investigation.

Key Words

eyewitness confidence photospread administrators double-blind testing 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bordens, K. S., & Abbott, B. B. (1999). Research design and methods: A process approach (4th ed.). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.Google Scholar
  2. Bradfield, A. L., Wells, G. L., & Olson, E. A. (2002). The damaging effect of confirming feedback on the relation between eyewitness certainty and identification accuracy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 112–120.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Brewer, N., & Burke, A. (2002). Effects of testimonial inconsistencies and eyewitness confidence on mock–juror judgments. Law and Human Behavior, 26(3), 353–364.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Brewer, N., Keast, A., & Rishworth, A. (2002). The confidence–accuracy relationship in eyewitness identification: The effects of reflection and disconfirmation on correlation and calibration. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 8, 44–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cutler, B. L., & Penrod, S. D. (1988). Improving the reliability of eyewitness identification: Lineup construction and presentation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 281–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Stuve, T. E. (1988). Juror decision making in eyewitness identification cases. Law and Human Behavior, 12(1), 41–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Doob, A. N., & Kirshenbaum, H. (1973). Bias in police lineups-partial remembering. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 1, 287–293.Google Scholar
  8. Dunning, D. E., & Perretta, S. F. (2002). Automaticity and eyewitness accuracy: A 10- to 12-second rule for distinguishing accurate from inaccurate positive identifications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(5), 951–962.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Dunning, D. E., & Stern, L. B. (1994). Distinguishing accurate from inaccurate eyewitness identifications via inquiries about decision processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(5), 818–835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fox, S. G., & Walters, H. A. (1986). The impact of general versus specific expert testimony and eyewitness confidence upon mock juror judgment. Law and Human Behavior, 10, 215–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Garrioch, L., & Brimacombe, C. A. E. (2001). Lineup administrators' expectations: Their impact on eyewitness confidence. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 299–314.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Gosling, S. D., Vazire, S., Srivastava, S., & John, O. P. (2004). Should we trust web-based studies? A comparative analysis of six preconceptions about Internet questionnaires. American Psychologist, 59, 93–104.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Hinkle, D. E., Wiersma, W., & Jurs, S. G. (2003). Applied statistics for the behavioral sciences (5th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  14. Kassin, S. (1998). Eyewitness identification procedures: The fifth rule. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 649–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kebbell, M. R., Wagstaff, G. F., & Covey, J. A. (1996). The influence of item difficulty on the relationship between eyewitness confidence and accuracy. British Journal of Psychology, 87, 653–662.Google Scholar
  16. Kneller, W., Memon, A., & Stevenage, S. (2001). Simultaneous and sequential photo lineups: Decision processes of accurate and inaccurate eyewitnesses. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 15, 659–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kraut, R., Olson, J., Banaji, M., Bruckman, A., Cohen, J., & Couper, M. (2004). Psychological research online: Report of board of scientific affairs' advisory group on the conduct of research on the Internet. American Psychologist, 56, 105–117.Google Scholar
  18. Lassiter, G. D. (2002). Illusory causation in the courtroom. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11(6), 204–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Leippe, M. R., Manion, A. P., & Romanczyk, A. (1992). Eyewitness persuasion: How and how well do fact finders judge the accuracy of adults' and children's memory reports? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(2), 181–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lindsay, R. C. L. (1986). Confidence and accuracy of eyewitness identification from lineups. Law and Human Behavior, 10, 229–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lindsay, R. C. L., Lea, J. A., & Fulford, J. A. (1991a). Sequential lineup presentation: Technique matters. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 741–745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lindsay, R. C. L., Lea, J. A., Nosworthy, G. J., Fulford, J. A., Hector, J., LeVan, V., et al. (1991b). Biased lineups: Sequential presentation reduces the problem. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 796–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lindsay, R. C. L., & Wells, G. L. (1985). Improving eyewitness identifications from lineups: Simultaneous versus sequential lineup presentation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 79–89.Google Scholar
  24. Lindsay, R. C. L., Wells, G. L., & O'Connor, F. J. (1989). Mock juror belief of accurate and inaccurate eyewitnesses: A replication and extension. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 333–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lindsay, R. C. L., Wells, G. L., & Rumpel, C. M. (1981). Can people detect eyewitness-identification accuracy within and across situations? Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 79–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Loftus, E. F. (1974). Reconstructing memory: The incredible eyewitness. Psychology Today, 8, 116–119.Google Scholar
  27. Luus, C. A. E., & Wells, G. L. (1994). The malleability of eyewitness confidence: Co-witness and perseverance effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 714–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Malpass, R. S., & Devine, P. G. (1981). Eyewitness identification: Lineup instructions and the absence of the offender. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 714–734.Google Scholar
  29. McGraw, K. O., Tew, M. D., & Williams, J. E. (2000). The integrity of web-based experiments: Can you trust the data? Psychological Science, 11, 502–506.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Memon, A., & Gabbert, F. (2003). Improving the identification accuracy of senior witnesses: Do prelineup questions and sequential testing help? Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 341–347.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84(3), 231–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nolan, J., & Markham, R. (1998). The accuracy–confidence relationship in an eyewitness task: Anxiety as a modifier. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 12, 43–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Penrod, S., & Cutler, B. L. (1995). Witness confidence and witness accuracy: Assessing their forensic relation. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 1(4), 817–845.Google Scholar
  34. Pfungst, O. (1965). Clever Hans: The horse of Mr. von Osten (R. Rosenthal, Ed.). Holt, Reinhart, & Winston, Inc. (Original work published 1911).Google Scholar
  35. Phillips, M. R., McAuliff, B. D., Kovera, M. B., & Cutler, B. L. (1999). Double-blind photoarray administration as a safeguard against investigator bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 940–951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Read, D. (2004, March). Who's educating jurors on eyewitness issues? The experts or the media? In D. Read (Chair), Expert Testimony and Common Knowledge. Paper session conducted at the annual meeting of the American Psychology—Law Society, Scottsdale, Arizona.Google Scholar
  37. Robinson, M. D., Johnson, J. T., Herndon, F. (1997). Reaction time and assessments of cognitive effort as predictors of eyewitness memory accuracy and confidence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(3), 416–425.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Rosenthal, R. (2003). Covert communication in laboratories, classrooms, and the truly real world. Psychological Science, 12, 151–155.Google Scholar
  39. Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom: Teacher expectation and pupils' intellectual development. Psychological Reports, 19, 115–118.Google Scholar
  40. Semmler, C., Brewer, N., & Wells, G. L. (2004). Effects of postidentification feedback on eyewitness identification and nonidentification confidence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(2), 334–346.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Shaw, J. S., III, & McClure, K. A. (1996). Repeated postevent questioning can lead to elevated levels of eyewitness confidence. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 629–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Smith, S. M., Lindsay, R. C. L., Pryke, S., & Dysart, J. E. (2001). Postdictors of eyewitness errors: Can false identfications be diagnosed in the cross-race situation? Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 7(1), 153–169.Google Scholar
  43. Sporer, S. L. (1993). Eyewitness identification accuracy, confidence and decision times in simultaneous and sequential lineups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 22–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sporer, S. L., Penrod, S., Read, D., & Cutler, B. (1995). Choosing, confidence, and accuracy: A meta-analysis of the confidence–accuracy relation in eyewitness identification studies. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 315–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Steblay, N. (1997). Social influence in eyewitness recall: A meta-analytic review of lineup instruction effects. Law and Human Behavior, 21(3), 283–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Steblay, N., Dysart, J., Fulero, S., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (2001). Eyewitness accuracy rates in sequential and simultaneous lineup presentations: A meta-analytic comparison. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 459–474.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Turtle, J. (2000). The Automated Photo-Lineup System (TAPS). Paper presented at the 3rd biennial meeting of the Society for Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, Boulder, CO.Google Scholar
  48. Wells, G. L. (1984). How adequate is human intuition for judging eyewitness testimony. In G. L. Wells & E. F. Loftus (Eds.), Eyewitness testimony: Psychological perspectives (pp. 256–272). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  49. 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(3), 360–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wells, G. L., & Bradfield, A. L. (1999). Distortions in eyewitness' recollections: Can the postidentification-feedback effect be moderated? Psychological Science, 10, 138–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wells, G. L., Lindsay, R. C. L., & Ferguson, T. J. (1979). Accuracy, confidence, and juror perceptions in eyewitness identification. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 440–448.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Wells, G. L., Olson, E. A., & Charman, S. D. (2002). The confidence of eyewitnesses in their identifications from lineups. Psychological Science, 11, 151–154.Google Scholar
  53. 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
  54. Wheatcroft, J. M., Wagstaff, G. F., & Kebbell, M. R. (2004). The influence of courtroom questioning style on actual and perceived eyewitness confidence and accuracy. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 9(1), 83–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Whitley, B. E., & Greenberg, M. S. (1986). The role of eyewitness confidence in juror perceptions of credibility. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16(5), 387–409.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© American Psychology-Law Society/Division 41 of the American Psychological Association 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amy Bradfield Douglass
    • 1
    Email author
  • Caroline Smith
    • 1
  • Rebecca Fraser-Thill
    • 1
  1. 1.Psychology DepartmentBates CollegeLewiston

Personalised recommendations