SummaryAdministering lineups “blind”—whereby the administrator does not know the identity of the suspect—is considered part of best practices for lineups. The current study tests whether non‐blind lineup administrators would evaluate ambiguous eyewitness statements, and the witness himself or herself, in a manner consistent with their beliefs. College students (n = 219) were told the identity of the suspect or not before administering a lineup to a confederate‐witness who made an ambiguous response (e.g., “it could be #3 but I'm not sure”). When ambiguous witness statements matched administrators' beliefs regarding the suspect (compared with when they mismatched administrators' beliefs, or administrators had no belief), administrators (a) were significantly more likely to record the statement as an identification (as opposed to a “not sure” response); (b) were significantly less likely to make statements that might lead the witness away from the suspect; and (c) evaluated the witness's viewing conditions significantly more positively.

Although vocal and facial cues to attractiveness are well established, few studies have examined how these signals interact, even though they often co-occur in real-world scenarios. We investigate the integration of vocal and facial signals of attractiveness, adapting a Garner interference paradigm. Prior research has demonstrated that average faces and voices are seen as more attractive; thus, we manipulated attractiveness by varying the degree of averageness of either the face or the voice. In Experiment 1, participants rated the attractiveness of the face and voice stimuli in isolation and paired together in 2 separate audiovisual conditions in which individual voices or faces were rated (attended domain) while the accompanying face or voice in the unattended domain varied in averageness. Facial averageness in the unattended domain altered attractiveness ratings of individual voices, though vocal averageness did not influence facial attractiveness. Because vocal pitch also influences attractiveness, Experiment 2 manipulated vocal pitch and facial averageness. Despite a significant pitch effect for voices in isolation, vocal pitch did not influence facial attractiveness in audiovisual conditions. This provides preliminary evidence that vocal and facial cues are integrated asymmetrically: Faces appear integral to the perception of vocal attractiveness, whereas voices are a separable domain when judging facial attractiveness.