By questionnaire, 631 police investigators reported on their interrogation beliefs and practices-the first such survey ever conducted. Overall, participants estimated that they were 77% accurate at truth and lie detection, that 81% of suspects waive Miranda rights, that the mean length of interrogation is 1.6 hours, and that they elicit self-incriminating statements from 68% of suspects, 4.78% from innocents. Overall, 81% felt that interrogations should be recorded. As for self-reported usage of various interrogation tactics, the most common were to physically isolate suspects, identify contradictions in suspects' accounts, establish rapport, confront suspects with evidence of their guilt, and appeal to self-interests. Results were discussed for their consistency with prior research, policy implications, and methodological shortcomings.

identifications from CCTV must be treated with caution and provide some basic estimates for identification accuracy with different pixelation levels. This study also highlights potential methods for improving performance in this task.3

Judges in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada have ruled that witnesses may not wear the niqab-a type of face veil-when testifying, in part because they believed that it was necessary to see a person's face to detect deception (Muhammad v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car, 2006; R. v. N. S., 2010; The Queen v. D(R), 2013). In two studies, we used conventional research methods and safeguards to empirically examine the assumption that niqabs interfere with lie detection. Female witnesses were randomly assigned to lie or tell the truth while remaining unveiled or while wearing a hijab (i.e., a head veil) or a niqab (i.e., a face veil). In Study 1, laypersons in Canada (N = 232) were more accurate at detecting deception in witnesses who wore niqabs or hijabs than in those who did not wear veils. Concealing portions of witnesses' faces led laypersons to change their decision-making strategies without eliciting negative biases. Lie detection results were partially replicated in Study 2, with laypersons in Canada, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands (N = 291): observers' performance was better when witnesses wore either niqabs or hijabs than when witnesses did not wear veils. These findings suggest that, contrary to judicial opinion, niqabs do not interfere with-and may, in fact, improve-the ability to detect deception. (PsycINFO Database Record

Sequential lineups were offered as an alternativetothe traditional simultaneous lineup. Sequential lineups reduce incorrect lineup selections; however, the accompanying loss of correct identifications has resulted in controversy regarding adoption of the technique.Wediscuss the procedure and research relevant to (1) the pattern of results found using sequential versus simultaneous lineups; (2) reasons (theory) for differences in witness responses; (3) two methodological issues; and (4) implications for policy decisions regarding the adoption of sequential lineups.The simultaneous lineup involves showing aw itnessa na rray of people or photos comprised of as uspect and known-innocents (fillers). Lineup membersa re presented together (simultaneously). Witnesses indicate whether theyrecognize anyone from the lineup and,i fs o, from where.S election of as uspect can lead to prosecution and conviction, often in the absence of other evidence (Devlin, 1976). Witnesses frequently select people from alineup that theyhave neverseen before (Steblay,Dysart, Fulero,& Lindsay,2 001).S uch false positive choices implicate the innocent, deflect attention away from the guilty,a nd discredit eyewitnesses as as ource of evidence.Wells (1984) argued that witnesses makefrequent errorsfrom simultaneous lineups because theye mploy a' relative judgment strategy'; choosing the best match to their memory. Researchparticipants often state that theythought the 'target' would be in the lineup because there seemedt ob en or eason to attempt an identification unless the target wasincluded. In the realworld, asimilar style of reasoning may lead witnesses to believe that the lineup contains as uspect and that the police have other evidence implicating the suspect. In combination, this situation can lead witnesses to construe the task as deciding which member of the lineuptoselect rather than whether or not to

Purpose. People tend to believe eyewitness testimony and have difficulty assessing the accuracy of eyewitness identifications. This study examines observers' perceptions of eyewitness identifications made under various line-up presentation and administration conditions. We also investigate whether observers' ability to discriminate between accurate and inaccurate identifications is enhanced by viewing video-recorded identification decisions rather than eyewitness testimony.Methods. Each participant (N = 432) viewed a video of an accurate or inaccurate eyewitness providing testimony and/or making an identification decision. Identifications were obtained from simultaneous or sequential line-ups conducted under double-blind, single-blind, or post-identification feedback administration conditions.Results. Exposure to eyewitness testimony was associated with a bias to believe the evidence; exposure to the identification decision eliminated the response bias, however, it did not improve observer sensitivity to identification accuracy. Viewing the identification decision resulted in greater belief of accurate than inaccurate identifications when eyewitnesses chose from simultaneous -but not sequential -line-ups. Regardless of evidence type or identification accuracy, observers were more likely to believe eyewitnesses who received confirmatory post-identification feedback compared to the non-feedback conditions.Conclusions. Presenting a video record of the identification decision neither improved observers' ability to discriminate between accurate and inaccurate eyewitness identifications nor reduced belief of identifications obtained from suggestive procedures. Further research is warranted before presenting video-recorded identification procedures in court.