Eyewitness identification research has reliably shown that accurate identifications are faster than inaccurate identifications. Recently, D. Dunning and S. Perretta (2002) claimed that an identification latency of 10–12 s not only best discriminates between accurate and inaccurate identifications but also produces extremely high accuracy rates, approaching 90%. Consistent with predictions from recognition memory theory, however, we show that the optimum time boundary varies with overall response latency under manipulations of retention interval and nominal lineup size, and that the accuracy rate inside the optimum time boundary is much less impressive than previously reported. We outline directions for clarifying the accuracy and latency relationship to assist the reliable diagnosis of identification accuracy.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Values of Cohen's f greater than .4 are considered large effects, while the cut-off values for small and medium effects are .1 and .25, respectively.
Time boundary analyses can also be conducted by computing the log odds ratio at each time boundary. As the log odds ratio analyses produce the same pattern of results as the chi square analyses, we report only the chi square analyses.
REFERENCES
Atkinson, R. C., & Juola, J. F. (1974). Search and decision processes in recognition memory. In D. H. Krantz, R. C. Atkinson, R. D. Luce, & P. Suppes (Eds.), Contemporary developments in mathematical psychology: Vol. 1. Learning, memory and thinking (pp. 243–293). San Francisco, CA: Freeman.
Brewer, N., Gordon, M., & Bond, N. (2000). Effect of photoarray exposure duration on eyewitness identification accuracy and processing strategy. Psychology, Crime & Law, 6, 21–32.
Brewer, N., Weber, N., & Semmler, C. (2005). Eyewitness identification. In N. Brewer, & K. D. Williams (Eds.), Psychology and law: An empirical perspective (pp. 177–221). New York: Guilford.
Brewer, N., Weber, N., & Semmler, C. (in press). A role for theory in eyewitness identification research. In R. C. L. Lindsay, D. F. Ross, J. D. Read, & M. Toglia (Eds.), Handbook of eyewitness psychology: Volume 2: Memory for people. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dunning, D., & Perretta, S. (2002). Automaticity and eyewitness accuracy: A 10- to 12-second rule for distinguishing accurate from inaccurate positive identifications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 951–962.
Dunning, D., & Stern, L. B. (1994). Distinguishing accurate from inaccurate eyewitness identifications via inquiries about decision processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 818–835.
Gillund, G., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1984). A retrieval model for both recognition and recall. Psychological Review, 91, 1–67.
Kahana, M., & Loftus, G. (1999). Response time versus accuracy in human memory. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of cognition (pp. 323–384). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lindsay, R. C. L., & Wells, G. L. (1980). What price justice? Exploring the relationship of lineup fairness to identification accuracy. Law and Human Behavior, 4, 303–313.
Lindsay, R. C. L., & Wells, G. L. (1985). Improving eyewitness identifications from lineups: Simultaneous versus sequential lineup presentation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 556–564.
Malpass, R. S., & Devine, P. G. (1981). Eyewitness identification: Lineup instructions and the absence of the offender. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 482–489.
Metcalfe, J. (1996). Metacognitive processes. In E. L. Bjork & R. A. Bjork (Eds.), Memory handbook of perception and cognition (Vol. 10, pp. 381–407). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Murdock, B. B. (1985). An analysis of the strength-latency relationship. Memory and Cognition, 13, 511–521.
Murdock, B. B., & Dufty, P. O. (1972). Strength theory and recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 94, 284–290.
Ratcliff, R. (1978). A theory of memory retrieval. Psychological Review, 85, 59–108.
Smith, S. M., Lindsay, R. C. L., & Pryke, S. (2000). Postdictors of eyewitness errors: Can false identifications be diagnosed? Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 542–550.
Smith, S. M., Lindsay, R. C. L., Pryke, S., & Dysart, J. E. (2001). Postdictors of eyewitness errors: Can false identifications be diagnosed in the cross-race situation? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7, 153–169.
Sporer, S. L. (1992). Post-dicting eyewitness accuracy: Confidence, decision-times and person descriptions of choosers and nonchoosers. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 157–180.
Sporer, S. L. (1993). Eyewitness identification accuracy, confidence, and decision times in simultaneous and sequential lineups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 22–33.
Sporer, S. L. (1994). Decision times and eyewitness identification accuracy in simultaneous and sequential lineups. In D. F. Ross, J. D. Read, & M. P. Toglia (Eds.), Adult eyewitness testimony: Current trends and developments (pp. 300–327). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Treisman, A., & Gelade, G. (1980). A feature-integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 97–136.
Treisman, A., & Gormican, S. (1988). Feature analysis in early vision: Evidence from search asymmetries. Psychological Review, 95, 15–48.
Van Zandt, T. (2000). ROC curves and confidence judgments in recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 582–600.
Weber, N., Brewer, N., Wells, G. L., Semmler, C., & Keast, A. (2004). Eyewitness identification and response latency: The unruly 10–12 second rule. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 10, 139–147.
Wells, G. L., Leippe, M. R., & Ostrom, T. M. (1979). Guidelines for empirically assessing the fairness of a lineup. Law and Human Behavior, 3, 285–293.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was supported by grants A00104516 and DP0556876 from the Australian Research Council.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
About this article
Cite this article
Brewer, N., Caon, A., Todd, C. et al. Eyewitness Identification Accuracy and Response Latency. Law Hum Behav 30, 31–50 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-006-9002-7
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-006-9002-7