Expert Evidence

, Volume 5, Issue 4, pp 126–132 | Cite as

Increasing correct identifications by children

  • Joanna D. Pozzulo
  • R. C. L. Lindsay
Article

Abstract

Four new lineup procedures were examined with the goal of increasingchildren's identification accuracy. Participants (329 children aged 10 and11 years, 426 children aged 12 to 14 years, and 265 adults) were presentedwith either a target-present or target-absent lineup. Proceduralmodifications included providing a salient "I don't know" response option,extending ‘standard’ instructions, and modeling correct responses eitherusing an identification demonstration video or a handout. These conditionswere compared to a ‘standard’ (control) lineup procedure. Extending‘standard’ instructions increased correct identifications by the youngerchildren. Presenting a salient "I don't know" response increased overallchoosing for both target-present and target-absent lineups. Experimentalprocedures did not influence correct rejection rates. These data demonstratea variety of techniques that may be useful for improving the identificationaccuracy of child witnesses. Future directions are discussed.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Beal, C.R, Schmitt, K.L. and Dekle, D.J, 1995, Eyewitness identification of children: Effects of absolute judgements, nonverbal response options, and event encoding, Law and Human Behavior, 19: 197–216.Google Scholar
  2. Brigham, J.C, Van Verst, M. and Bothwell, R.K, 1986, Accuracy of children's eyewitness identifications in a field setting, Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 7: 295–306.Google Scholar
  3. Ceci, S.J, Toglia, M.P. and Ross, D.F, 1987, Children's Eyewitness Memory, New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  4. Cohen, J, 1988, Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  5. Cutler, B.L. and Penrod, S.D, 1988, Improving the reliability of eyewitness identification: Lineup construction and presentation, Journal of Applied Psychology, 73: 281–290.Google Scholar
  6. Davies, G.M, 1993, Children's memory for other people: An integrative review, (in) C.A. Nelson (ed.), Memory and Affect in Development, Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, (pp. 123–157).Google Scholar
  7. Davies, G.M, Stevenson-Robb, Y. and Flin, R, 1988, Tales out of school: Children's memory for an unexpected event, (in) M. Gruneberg, P. Morris, and R. Sykes (eds.), Practical Aspects of Memory: Current Research and Issues, Vol. 1, Chichester: Wiley, (pp. 122–127).Google Scholar
  8. Goodman, G.S., and Reed, R.S, 1986, Age differences in eyewitness testimony, Law and Human Behavior, 10: 317–332.Google Scholar
  9. King, M.A., and Yuille, J.C, 1987, Suggestibility and the child witness, (in) S.J. Ceci, M.P. Toglia, and D.F. Ross (eds.), Children's Eyewitness Memory, New York: Springer-Verlag, (pp. 24–35).Google Scholar
  10. Kirk, R.E, 1982, Experimental Design: Procedures for the Behavioral Sciences, Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
  11. Lindsay, R.C.L, Craig, W, Lee, K, Pozzulo, J.D, Corber, S, Rombough, V. and Smyth, L, 1995, June, Eyewitness identification procedures for use with children, (paper presented at the meeting of the Society for Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, Vancouver).Google Scholar
  12. Lindsay, R.C.L. Lea, J.A, Nosworthy, G.J, Fulford, J.A, Hector, J, LeVan, V. and Seabrook, C, 1991, Biased lineups: Sequential presentation reduces the problem, Journal of Applied Psychology, 76: 796–802.Google Scholar
  13. Lindsay, R.C.L., Pozzulo, J.D, Craig, W, Lee, K. and Corber, S, (in press), Simultaneous lineups, sequential lineups, and showups: Eyewitness identification decisions of adults and children, Law and Human Behavior.Google Scholar
  14. Lindsay, R.C.L. and Wells, G.L, 1985, Improving eyewitness identification from lineups: Simultaneous versus sequential lineup presentation, Journal of Applied Psychology, 70: 556–564.Google Scholar
  15. Marin, B.V, Holmes, D.L, Guth, M. and Kovac, P, 1979, The potential of children as eyewitnesses: A comparison of children and adults on eyewitness tasks, Law and Human Behavior, 3: 295–306.Google Scholar
  16. Parker, J.F. and Carranza, L.E, 1989, Eyewitness testimony of children in target-present and target-absent lineups, Law and Human Behavior, 13: 133–149.Google Scholar
  17. Parker, J.F, Haverfield, E. and Baker-Thomas, S, 1986, Eyewitness testimony of children, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16: 287–302.Google Scholar
  18. Parker, J.F. and Ryan, V, 1993, An attempt to reduce guessing behavior in children's and adults' eyewitness identifications, (Special Issues: Law, psychology, and children), Law and Human Behavior, 17: 11–26.Google Scholar
  19. Raskin, D.C. and Yuille, J.C, 1989, Problems in evaluating interviews of children in sexual abuse cases, (in) S.J, Ceci, D.F, Ross and M.P. Toglia (eds.), Perspectives on children's testimony, New York: Springer-Verlag, (pp. 184–207).Google Scholar
  20. Speer, J.R, 1984, Two practical strategies young children use to interpret vague instructions, Child Development, 55: 1811–1819.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joanna D. Pozzulo
    • 1
  • R. C. L. Lindsay
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyQueen's UniversityKingstonCanada

Personalised recommendations