Eyewitnesses are widely believed to have a better chance of identifying a perpetrator from a live identification procedure than from photo or video alternatives. To test this live superiority hypothesis, prospective students and their parents (N = 1048) became unsuspecting witnesses to staged events and were randomly assigned to live, photo, or video identification procedures. In Experiment 1, participants viewed a single person at the identification procedure. In Experiment 2, participants viewed a lineup of six people. Across experiments, live identification procedures did not improve eyewitness identification performance. The results show that even under experimental settings designed to eliminate the disadvantages of conducting live lineups in practice, live presentation confers no benefit to eyewitnesses.

Feature-comparison evidence has been introduced in court without sufficient scientific validation and has been at the heart of numerous miscarriages of justice. Juror assessment of such evidence and the efficacy of evidentiary instructions were examined through a mock jury experiment with case reports featuring either central or peripheral feature-comparison evidence. In a case-control design (N = 174), the test group was exposed to an evidentiary instruction about the ear print evidence presented in the first case report (adapted from R v Dallagher [2002] EWCA Crim 1903) whereas the control group did not receive such an instruction. The provision of this instruction resulted in a significant decrease in verdict severity with a large effect size. For the second case report (based on R v George (Barry) [2007] EWCA Crim 2722), all subjects were asked to return verdicts based on circumstantial evidence, gunpowder residue evidence, and an evidentiary instruction about that gunpowder residue evidence. Verdict severity increased significantly after the provision of gunpowder residue evidence, followed by a subsequent reduction in verdict severity after the introduction of an evidentiary instruction. Furthermore, there was a significant difference in verdict severity between the test and control group, suggesting that the test group exhibited a scepticism effect brought about by the initial evidentiary instruction about ear print evidence. This study demonstrates that although mock jurors consider feature-comparison evidence a convincing indicator of guilt, the provision of an evidentiary instruction has the potential to educate jurors about the limitations of such evidence.

It is predicted that emergency responses to critical incidents will increase over the next few decades, as society faces unique and dynamic challenges (e.g., pandemics, migrant crises, and terrorism). As such, it is necessary to breakdown, identify, and evaluate the unique barriers associated with decision-making in the context of critical incident responses. The aim of the current study was to synthesize the bibliographic characteristics of the research on decision making and present a holistic narrative analysis of the multi-layered factors. Additionally, the systematic synthesis of evidence facilitated a critical appraisal of the quality and distribution of evidence across macro-, meso-, and micro- levels. Results suggested that research was moderately heterogeneous, as evidence captured diverse narrative factors. However, micro-centric characteristics (e.g., cognitive-related factors) were not well represented. Instead, research primarily focused toward intermediate meso-level characteristics, capturing factors such as “interoperability” and “organization policy and procedure” as critical challenges to decision-making. Six key narratives were also identified and discussed. Both the quality appraisal and narrative findings suggested that research should seek opportunities to experimentally assess, evaluate and validate decision-making. Whilst this has previously appeared ethically and practically problematic, advances in technology, research and analysis have allowed high-fidelity simulation experimentation to recreate critical incidents.

No abstract

It is predicted that emergency response to critical incident events will likely increase in the coming decades, as society faces unique and dynamic challenges (e.g., pandemics, migrant crises, terrorism). As such, it is necessary to breakdown, identify and evaluate the unique barriers associated with decision-making in the context of critical incident response. Current research has often framed the factors that influence critical incident-related decision-making in respect to independent singular sociological and psychological characteristics. The aim of this study was to synthesise the bibliographic characteristics of the research and present a holistic narrative analysis of the multi-layered factors associated with decision-making. The systematic synthesis of evidence also facilitated a critical appraisal of the quality and distribution of evidence across macro-, meso-, and micro- levels. Results suggested that research was moderately heterogeneous, as the synthesis of evidence captured diverse narrative factors. However, eligible research remained sparse and often focused on singular factors. Further, micro-centric characteristics (e.g., cognitive-related factors) were not well represented. Research primarily focused toward intermediate meso-level characteristics, capturing factors such as ‘interoperability’ and ‘organisation policy and procedure’ as critical challenges to decision-making. Six key narratives were also identified and discussed. Both the quality appraisal and narrative findings suggested that research should seek opportunities to experimentally assess, evaluate and validate decision-making. In practice, whilst this has in the past appeared ethically and practically problematic, advances in technology, research and analysis have allowed high-fidelity simulation experimentation to recreate critical incident events.