Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bindemann M (2010) Scene and screen center bias early eye movements in scene viewing. Vis Res 50:2577–2587

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 36:1477–1485

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blais C, Jack RE, Scheepers C, Fiset D, Caldara R (2008) Culture shapes how we look at faces. PLoS One 3(8):e3022

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brewer N, Palmer MA (2010) Eyewitness identification tests. Leg Criminol Psychol 15:77–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brewer N, Gordon M, Bond N (2000) Effect of photoarray exposure duration on eyewitness identification accuracy and processing strategy. Psychol Crime Law 6:21–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 5:339–360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burt DM, Perrett DI (1997) Perceptual asymmetries in judgements of facial attractiveness, age, gender, speech and expression. Neuropsychologia 35:685–693

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Burton AM, White D, McNeill A (2010) The Glasgow face matching test. Behav Res Method 42:286–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler SH, Harvey M (2005) Does inversion abolish the left chimeric face processing advantage? Neuroreport 16:1991–1993

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Clark SE, Davey SL (2005) The target-to-foils shift in simultaneous and sequential lineups. Law Human Behav 29:151–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark SE, Howell RT, Davey SL (2008) Regularities in eyewitness identification. Law Human Behav 32:187–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coolican J, Eskes GA, McMullen PA, Lecky E (2008) Perceptual biases in processing facial identity and emotion. Brain Cogn 66:176–187

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Costigan R (2007) Identification from CCTV: the risk of injustice. Criminal Law Review, 591-608.

  • 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 87:951–962

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dunning D, Stern LB (1994) Distinguishing accurate from inaccurate eyewitness identifications via inquiries about decision processes. J Personal Soc Psychol 67:818–835

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ericsson KA, Simon HA (1980) Verbal reports as data. Psychol Rev 87:215–251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 11:46–58

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 2:156–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert C, Bakan P (1973) Visual asymmetry in perception of faces. Neuropsychologia 11:355–362

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Haxby JV, Hoffman EA, Gobbini MI (2000) The distributed human neural system for face perception. Trend Cogn Sci 4(6):223–233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heath RL, Rouhana A, Ghanem DA (2005) Asymmetric bias in perception of facial affect among roman and Arabic script readers. Laterality 10:51–64

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson JM, Williams CC, Falk RJ (2005) Eye movements are functional during face learning. Mem Cognit 33:98–106

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hershler O, Hochstein S (2005) At first sight: a high-level pop out effect for faces. Vis Res 45:1707–1724

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hsiao JH, Cottrell G (2008) Two fixations suffice in face recognition. Psychol Sci 19:998–1006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hsiao JH, Cottrell GW (2009) Not all visual expertise is holistic, but it may be leftist: the case of Chinese character recognition. Psychol Sci 20:455–463

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hurlburt RT, Heavey CL (2001) Telling what we know: describing inner experience. Trend Cogn Sci 5:400–403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Innocence Project (n.d.). Retrieved October 29, 2011, from Innocence Project Website: http://www.innocenceproject.org/

  • Jenkins R, Burton AM (2008) Limitations in facial identification. Justice Peace 172:4–6

    Google Scholar 

  • Kneller W, Memon A, Stevenage S (2001) Simultaneous and sequential lineups: decision processes of accurate and inaccurate witnesses. Appl Cogn Psychol 15:659–671

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leach AM, Cutler BL, Wallendael LV (2009) Lineups and eyewitness identification. Annu Rev Law Social Sci 5:157–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leonards U, Scott-Samuel NE (2005) Idiosyncratic initiation of saccadic face exploration in humans. Vis Res 45:2677–2684

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lindsay PH, Norman DA (1977) Human information processing, 2nd edn. Academic Press, New York

  • Mansour JK & Flowe HD (2010) Eyetracking and eyewitness memory. Forensic Update, No. 101.

  • Mansour JK, Lindsay RCL, Brewer N, Munhall KG (2009) Characterizing visual behaviour in a lineup task. Appl Cogn Psychol 23:1012–1026

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Megreya AM, Bindemann M (2009) Revisiting the processing of internal and external features of unfamiliar faces: the head-scarf effect. Perception 38:1831–1848

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Megreya AM, Burton AM (2006a) Recognising faces seen alone or with others: when two heads are worse than one. Appl Cogn Psychol 20:957–972

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Megreya AM, Burton AM (2006b) Unfamiliar faces are not faces: evidence from a matching task. Mem Cognit 34:865–876

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Megreya AM, Burton AM (2007) Hits and false positives in face matching: a familiarity based dissociation. Percept Psychophys 69:1175–1184

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Megreya AM, Burton AM (2008) Matching faces to photographs: poor performance in eyewitness memory (without the memory). J Exp Psychol: Appl 14:364–372

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Megreya A, Havard C (2011) Left face matching bias: right hemisphere dominance or scanning habits. Lateral: Asymmetries Body, Brain Cogn 16:75–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 7:3–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Memon A, Vrij A, Bull R (2003) Psychology & law: truthfulness, accuracy and credibility of victims, witnesses and suspects. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  • Mertens I, Siegmund H, Grusser OJ (1993) Gaze motor asymmetries in the perception of faces during a memory task. Neuropsychologia 31:989–998

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nisbett RE, Wilson TD (1977) Telling more than we can know: verbal reports on mental processes. Psychol Rev 84:231–259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rayner K (1998) Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychol Bull 124:372–422

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rhodes G (1985) Lateralized processes in face recognition. Br J Psychol 76:249–271

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 21:677–690

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sakhuja T, Gupta GC, Singh M, Vaid J (1996) Reading habits affect asymmetries in facial affect judgements: a replication. Brain Cogn 32:162–164

    Google Scholar 

  • Sauerland M, Sporer SL (2007) Post-decision confidence, decision time, and self-reported decision processes as postdictors of identification accuracy. Psychol Crime Law 13:611–625

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarzer G, Huber S, Dümmler T (2005) Gaze behavior in analytical and holistic face processing. Mem Cognit 33:344–354

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro P, Penrod S (1986) A meta-analysis of facial identification studies. Psychol Bull 100:139–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spalek TM, Hammad S (2005) The left-to-right bias in inhibition of return is due to the direction of reading. Psychol Sci 16:15–18

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Treisman AM, Gelade G (1980) A feature-integration theory of attention. Cogn Psychol 12:97–136

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vaid J, Singh M (1989) Asymmetries in the perception of facial affect: is there an influence of reading habits? Neuropsychologia 27:1277–1287

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wells GL, Small M, Penrod S, Malpass RS, Fulero SM, Brimacombe CAE (1998) Eyewitness identification procedures: recommendations for lineups and photospreads. Law Human Behav 22:1–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wells GL, Memon A, Penrod SD (2006) Eyewitness evidence: improving its probative value. Psychol Sci Public Interest 7:45–75

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 46:3061–3068

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Menoufia University, Shebin El-Kom, Egypt

    Ahmed M. Megreya

  2. Department of Psychology, University College in Qunfudah, Umm Al-Qura University, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

    Ahmed M. Megreya

  3. School of Psychology, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK

    Markus Bindemann

  4. Department of Psychology, The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK

    Catriona Havard

  5. School of Psychology, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK

    A. Mike Burton

Authors
  1. Ahmed M. Megreya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Markus Bindemann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Catriona Havard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. A. Mike Burton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ahmed M. Megreya.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Megreya, A.M., Bindemann, M., Havard, C. et al. Identity-Lineup Location Influences Target Selection: Evidence from Eye Movements. J Police Crim Psych 27, 167–178 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-011-9098-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-011-9098-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation