A Comprehensive Evaluation of Showups

ROCs in Eyewitness Identification: Instructions versus Confidence Ratings

“…Although several different methods can be used to generate ROC data, only one method has been used thus far in the eyewitness ID literature (e.g., Anderson, Carlson, Carlson, & Gronlund, ; Carlson & Carlson, ; Colloff, Wade, & Strange, ; Dobolyi & Dodson, ; Gronlund et al, ; Flowe, Klatt, & Coloff, ; Flowe, Smith, Karoğlu, Onwuegbusi, & Rai, , ; Humphries & Flowe, ; Key et al, ; Lampinen, Erickson, Moore, & Hittson, ; Mickes, ; Neuschatz et al, ; Seale‐Carlisle & Mickes, ; Smith & Flowe, ; Wetmore, Neuschatz, Gronlund, Key, & Goodsell, ; Wetmore, Neuschatz, Gronlund, Wooten, Goodsell, & Carlson, ). That method makes use of confidence ratings that participants provide when they make an ID from a lineup (for a tutorial, see Gronlund et al, ).…”

The impact of evidence lineups on fingerprint expert decisions

“…As in Quigley‐McBride and Wells' (2018) study of novices, as well as myriad studies of eyewitness identification (Neuschatz et al, 2016), our examiners were less likely to make a correct identification (ID) from a match‐present evidence lineup (43%) than a match‐present showup (58%). Conversely, whereas prior work suggests that evidence lineups should likewise decrease false IDs, false IDs in our study were exceedingly rare: Only one examiner (in the showup condition) misidentified the innocent suspect's sample as a match to the crime scene mark.…”

“…Evidence lineups also produced fewer correct rejections (i.e., correct decisions that no matching print was present) than the standard procedure, indicating that evidence lineups siphoned errors away from the innocent suspect and onto filler samples. Notably, both of these findings are common to eyewitness identification studies (e.g., Neuschatz et al, 2016; Smith et al, 2017; Wells et al, 1998), suggesting that lineup presentations influence eyewitness and forensic identification similarly. Consistent with this idea, Smith, Mackovichova, Jalava, and Pozzulo (2020) recently demonstrated that the advantage of lineups over showups also extends to nonfacial stimuli (i.e., vehicles).…”

“…Relatedly, Wells et al (2013) speculated that evidence lineups should discourage overconfidence by making examiners more aware of their own mistakes and limitations, such that their confidence should become better calibrated to their true ability over time. Consistent with this argument, a recent meta‐analysis of eyewitness identification studies found that confidence was a better predictor of accuracy for witnesses who viewed a lineup as opposed to a showup (Neuschatz et al, 2016). Because we did not measure confidence, we can only speculate to as whether viewing an evidence lineup might attenuate confidence.…”

“…This practice is analogous to an eyewitness showup, where an eyewitness views a single suspect and reports whether they believe this person was the culprit (Dysart & Lindsay, 2007). For decades, eyewitness showups have been criticized as inherently suggestive, and research has indicated that showups increase the risk of misidentifying an innocent suspect as guilty (e.g., Neuschatz et al, 2016; Steblay, Dysart, Fulero, & Lindsay, 2003; Wells et al, 1998; Wetmore et al, 2015). As such, best practice guidelines for eyewitness identification now discourage the use of showups unless absolutely necessary (National Academy of Sciences, 2014; Wells et al, 2020).…”