Advertisement

Developmental trends in lineup performance: Adolescents are more prone to innocent bystander misidentifications than children and adults

  • Nathalie Brackmann
  • Melanie Sauerland
  • Henry Otgaar
Article

Abstract

We tested developmental trends in eyewitness identification in biased and unbiased lineups. Our main interest was adolescent’s lineup performance compared with children and adults. 7–10-year-olds, 11–13-year-olds, 14–16-year-olds, and adults (N = 431) watched a wallet-theft-video and subsequently identified the thief, victim, and witness from simultaneous target-present and target-absent six-person photo lineups. The thief-absent lineup included a bystander previously seen in thief proximity. Research on unconscious transference suggested a selection bias toward the bystander in adults and 11–13-year-olds, but not in younger children. Confirming our hypothesis, adolescents were more prone to bystander bias than all other age groups. This may be due to adolescents making more inferential errors than children, as predicted by fuzzy-trace theory and associative-activation theory, combined with lower inhibition control in adolescents compared with adults. We also replicated a clothing bias for all age groups and age-related performance differences in our unbiased lineups. Consistent with previous findings, participants were generally overconfident in their decisions, even though confidence was a better predictor of accuracy in older compared with younger participants. With this study, we show that adolescents have an increased tendency to misidentify an innocent bystander. Continued efforts are needed to disentangle how adolescents in comparison to other age groups perform in forensically relevant situations.

Keywords

Identification performance Unconscious transference Child witnesses Adolescent witnesses Clothing bias Confidence–accuracy relationship 

Notes

Author note

Nathalie Brackmann, Section Forensic Psychology, Department of Clinical Psychological Science, Faculty of Psychology and Neuroscience, Maastricht University, the Netherlands, and Department of Psychology, Gothenburg University, Sweden; Melanie Sauerland, Department of Clinical Psychological Science, Faculty of Psychology and Neuroscience, Maastricht University, the Netherlands; Henry Otgaar, Department of Clinical Psychological Science, Faculty of Psychology and Neuroscience, Maastricht University, the Netherlands, and Department of Psychology, City University London, UK.

Nathalie Brackmann is now working at University Hospital of Psychiatry Zurich, Switzerland.

This paper has been supported by a fellowship from the Erasmus Mundus Joint Doctorate Programme in Legal Psychology (EMJD-LP; 2013-1438/001-001-EMII-EMJD) to Nathalie Brackmann. We want to thank Anne Lausberg, Wenke Müller, Britta Schumacher, Thijs Willems, and Hanna Egert for their help in piloting the materials and collecting the data.

References

  1. Blank, H., & Launay, C. (2014). How to protect eyewitness memory against the misinformation effect: A meta-analysis of post-warning studies. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 3, 77–88.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2014.03.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brainerd, C. J. (2013). Developmental reversals in false memory: A new look at the reliability of children’s evidence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22, 335–341.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721413484468 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brainerd, C. J., Reyna, V. F., & Ceci, S. J. (2008). Developmental reversals in false memory: A review of data and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 343–382.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.3.343 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Brewer, N., & Day, K. (2005). The confidence-accuracy and decision latency–accuracy relationships in children’s eyewitness identification. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 12, 119–128.  https://doi.org/10.1375/pplt.2005.12.1.119 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brewer, N., & Wells, G. L. (2006). The confidence-accuracy relationship in eyewitness identification: Effects of lineup instructions, foil similarity, and target-absent base rates. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 12, 11–30.  https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-898X.12.1.11 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Bruck, M., & Ceci, S. J. (1999). The suggestibility of children’s memory. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 419–439.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.50.1.419 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Deffenbacher, K. A., Bornstein, B. H., & Penrod, S. D. (2006). Mugshot exposure effects: Retroactive interference, mugshot commitment, source confusion, and unconscious transference. Law and Human Behavior, 30, 287–307.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-006-9008-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Deffenbacher, K. A., Bornstein, B. H., Penrod, S. D., & McGorty, E. K. (2004). A meta-analytic review of the effects of high stress on eyewitness memory. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 687–706.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-004-0565-x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Fernandez-Duque, D., Baird, J. A., & Posner, M. I. (2000). Executive attention and metacognitive regulation. Consciousness and Cognition, 9, 288–307.  https://doi.org/10.1006/ccog.2000.0447 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Fitzgerald, R. J., & Price, H. L. (2015). Eyewitness identification across the life span: A meta-analysis of age differences. Psychological Bulletin, 141, 1228–1265.  https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000013 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Fitzgerald, R. J., Price, H. L., Oriet, C., & Charman, S. D. (2013). The effect of suspect-filler similarity on eyewitness identification decisions: A meta-analysis. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 19, 151–164.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030618 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gardner, M., & Steinberg, L. (2005). Peer influence on risk taking, risk preference, and risky decision making in adolescence and adulthood: An experimental study. Developmental Psychology, 41, 625–635.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.41.4.625 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Havard, C., Memon, A., Clifford, B., & Gabbert, F. (2010). A comparison of video and static photo lineups with child and adolescent witnesses. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24, 1209–1221.  https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1645 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Howe, M. L., Wimmer, M. C., Gagnon, N., & Plumpton, S. (2009). An associative-activation theory of children’s and adults’ memory illusions. Journal of Memory and Language, 60, 229–251.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2008.10.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jack, F., Leov, J., & Zajac, R. (2013). Age-related differences in the free-recall accounts of child, adolescent, and adult witnesses. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28, 30–38.  https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2951 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Juslin, P., Olsson, N., & Winman, A. (1996). Calibration and diagnosticity of confidence in eyewitness identification: Comments on what can be inferred from the low confidence–accuracy correlation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 1304–1316.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.22.5.1304 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Keast, A., Brewer, N., & Wells, G. L. (2007). Children’s metacognitive judgments in an eyewitness identification task. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 97, 286–314.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2007.01.007 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Köhnken, G., Milne, R., Memon, A., & Bull, R. (1999). The cognitive interview: A meta-analysis. Psychology, Crime & Law, 5, 3–27.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10683169908414991 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lindsay, R. C., Wallbridge, H., & Drennan, D. (1987). Do the clothes make the man? An exploration of the effect of lineup attire on eyewitness identification accuracy. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue Canadienne Des Sciences Du Comportement, 19, 463–478.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0079998 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Luciana, M., Conklin, H. M., Hooper, C. J., & Yarger, R. S. (2005). The development of nonverbal working memory and executive control processes in adolescents. Child Development, 76, 697–712.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00872.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. McGuire, K., London, K., & Wright, D. B. (2015). Developmental trends in false memory across adolescence and young adulthood: A comparison of DRM and memory conformity paradigms. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 29, 334–344.  https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3114 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Memon, A., Meissner, C. A., & Fraser, J. (2010). The Cognitive Interview: A meta-analytic review and study space analysis of the past 25 years. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 16, 340–372.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020518 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Otgaar, H., Howe, M. L., Brackmann, N., & Smeets, T. (2016). The malleability of developmental trends in neutral and negative memory illusions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145, 31–55.  https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000127 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Otgaar, H., Howe, M. L., Peters, M., Smeets, T., & Moritz, S. (2014). The production of spontaneous false memories across childhood. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 121, 28–41.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2013.11.019 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Pozzulo, J. D., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (1997). Increasing correct identifications by children. Expert Evidence, 5, 126–132.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008875802767 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pozzulo, J. D., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (1998). Identification accuracy of children versus adults: A meta-analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 549–570.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025739514042 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Pozzulo, J. D., & Warren, K. L. (2003). Descriptions and identifications of strangers by youth and adult eyewitnesses. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 315–323.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.2.315 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Quas, J. A., Rush, E. B., Yim, I. S., Edelstein, R. S., Otgaar, H., & Smeets, T. (2016). Stress and emotional valence effects on children’s versus adolescents’ true and false memory. Memory, 24, 696–707.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2015.1045909 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Read, J. D., Tollestrup, P., Hammersley, R., McFadzen, E., & Christensen, A. (1990). The unconscious transference effect: Are innocent bystanders ever misidentified? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 4, 3–31.  https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2350040103 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ross, D. F., Ceci, S. J., Dunning, D., & Toglia, M. P. (1994). Unconscious transference and mistaken identity: When a witness misidentifies a familiar with innocent person. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 918–930.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.79.6.918 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ross, D. F., Marsil, D. F., Benton, T. R., Hoffman, R., Warren, A. R., Lindsay, R. C. L., & Metzger, R. (2006). Children’s susceptibility to misidentifying a familiar bystander from a lineup: When younger is better. Law and Human Behavior, 30, 249–257.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-006-9034-z CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Sauerland, M., Brackmann, N., & Otgaar, H. (in press). Rapport: little effect on children’s, adolescents’, and adults’ statement quantity, accuracy, and suggestibility. Journal of Child Custody.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15379418.2018.1509759
  33. Sauerland, M., Raymaekers, L. H. C., Otgaar, H., Memon, A., Waltjen, T. T., Nivo, M., . . . Smeets, T. (2016). Stress, stress-induced cortisol responses, and eyewitness identification performance. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 34, 580–594.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2249 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sauerland, M., & Sporer, S. L. (2009). Fast and confident: Postdicting eyewitness identification accuracy in a field study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 15, 46–62.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014560 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Shapiro, P. N., & Penrod, S. (1986). Meta-analysis of facial identification studies. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 139–156.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.100.2.139 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Shulman, E. P., Smith, A. R., Silva, K., Icenogle, G., Duell, N., Chein, J., & Steinberg, L. (2016). The dual systems model: Review, reappraisal, and reaffirmation. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 17, 103–117.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2015.12.010 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.118.3.315 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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, 459–473.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012888715007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Stevens, M. C., Kiehl, K. A., Pearlson, G. D., & Calhoun, V. D. (2007). Functional neural networks underlying response inhibition in adolescents and adults. Behavioural Brain Research, 181, 12–22.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2007.03.023 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. Tredoux, C. G. (1998). Statistical inference on measures of lineup fairness. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 217–237.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025746220886 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tredoux, C. (1999). Statistical considerations when determining measures of lineup size and lineup bias. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13, 9–26.  https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. van Duijvenvoorde, A. C., Peters, S., Braams, B. R., & Crone, E. A. (2016). What motivates adolescents? Neural responses to rewards and their influence on adolescents’ risk taking, learning, and cognitive control. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 70, 135–147.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.06.037 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. van den Bos, W., & Hertwig, R. (2017). Adolescents display distinctive tolerance to ambiguity and to uncertainty during risky decision making. Scientific Reports, 7, 1-11.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep40962
  44. Weber, N., & Brewer, N. (2004). Confidence–accuracy calibration in absolute and relative face recognition judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 10, 156–172.  https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-898X.10.3.156 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025750605807 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wixted, J. T., Read, J. D., & Lindsay, D. S. (2016). The effect of retention interval on the eyewitness identification confidence–accuracy relationship. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 5, 192–203.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2016.04.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nathalie Brackmann
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Melanie Sauerland
    • 1
  • Henry Otgaar
    • 1
    • 4
  1. 1.Maastricht UniversityMaastrichtthe Netherlands
  2. 2.University of GothenburgGothenburgSweden
  3. 3.University Hospital of Psychiatry ZurichRheinauSwitzerland
  4. 4.City, University of LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations