Administrator blindness affects the recording of eyewitness lineup outcomes.

Abstract

We investigated the effects of administrator knowledge of suspect identity in a lineup (blind vs. nonblind), witness identification (suspect vs. filler), and witness confidence (high vs. low) on whether administrators recorded the identification as an affirmative response; whether administrators recorded qualitative notes regarding the lineup task; and the content of those qualitative notes. Hypotheses: We predicted that nonblind administrators would record more identifications of the suspect than the filler, but blind administrators would record such identifications at comparable rates. We predicted this difference would be larger in the low (vs. high) confidence condition. We examined effects on administrators' qualitative notes in an exploratory fashion. Method: Undergraduate participant administrators (N ϭ 488) presented a lineup to a confederate witness (who made a scripted identification decision) and completed a record of the lineup task. Results: Nonblind administrators recorded 25% fewer identifications of fillers (vs. suspects), and evaluated witnesses less favorably in the filler (vs. suspect) identification condition ( p 2 ϭ .194). Blind administrators were not influenced by witness selection. Blind (vs. nonblind) administrators recorded more qualitative notes, confidence statements, and information relevant to witnesses' decision processes, regardless of whether witnesses identified the suspect or the filler. Among those who recorded a confidence statement, nonblind administrators' characterizations were biased such that independent coders judged witnesses to be more confident in their identifications of the suspect (vs. filler). Conclusion: Blind administration eliminates numerous biases associated with administrator expectations and may yield more informative lineup records. These results further support blind lineup reform recommendations. Public Significance StatementThis study demonstrated that lineup administrator expectations can distort a variety of aspects of the record of eyewitness identification evidence, including whether the witness made an identification and the witness's apparent confidence in that identification. Blind administration effectively guards against these distortions and overall yields more informative records of eyewitness lineup outcomes.

Policy and procedure recommendations for the collection and preservation of eyewitness identification evidence.

“…Controlled experiments have tested how administrators make records of the behavior of eyewitnesses as a function of whether the administrator of a lineup was blind and whether a confederate-witness chose the suspect or a filler (Rodriguez & Berry, 2014, 2019). Although double-blind administrators were just as likely to report that witnesses had made a positive identification when the witness identified a filler as when the witness identified the suspect, single-blind administrators were more likely to report incorrectly that witnesses who identified a filler had not made an identification.…”

The confidence-accuracy relationship using scale versus other methods of assessing confidence.

“…Not only do we require safeguards for the interpretation of verbal statements, but also to ensure verbal statements are recorded faithfully. Variability in recording has implications for the apparent effectiveness of a procedure (Rodriguez & Berry, 2019;Steblay, 2011).…”

“…Not only do we require safeguards for the interpretation of verbal statements, but also to ensure verbal statements are recorded faithfully. Variability in recording has implications for the apparent effectiveness of a procedure (Rodriguez & Berry, 2019; Steblay, 2011). Encouragingly, in the UK, officers are required to record all comments made by eyewitnesses in relation to their identification (PACE Code D, 2017, p. 39).…”

Toward a broader framework of eyewitness identification behavior.

“…These variations in behavior may occur as a result of variation in system variables. For example, lineup administrators may record eyewitness behavior differently as a function of whether they are blind to the identity of the suspect during the identification procedure (Rodriguez & Berry, 2014; Rodriguez & Berry, 2019). Similarly, the presence of other inculpatory evidence may affect the way officers interpret exculpatory evidence.…”