Default values in eyewitness descriptions: A problem for the match-to-description lineup foil selection strategy.

Lindsay, R. C. L.; Martin, Ronald R.; Webber, Lisa

doi:10.1007/bf01499172

Cited by 96 publications

(126 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

112

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In light of these circumstances, it is important to consider the potential impact of providing descriptions of several individuals seen within a similar encoding context. Despite the fact that descriptions of faces are often vague and imprecise (Ellis et al, 1980;Lindsay, Martin, & Webber, 1994) and that some authors have suggested that providing descriptions may interfere with subsequent identification (e.g., Brown & Lloyd-Jones, 2003), the present experiments show that providing descriptions of multiple faces can benefit their subsequent recognition. Furthermore, constraining witnesses to describe faces in a particular way-for instance, by focusing on holistic aspects of the face-may increase this benefit.…”

Section: Facilitation Versus Interferencecontrasting

confidence: 48%

Verbal facilitation of face recognition

Brown

Lloyd‐Jones

2005

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examined the effects of verbally describing a face on face memory, as assessed in an old/new recognition task. Experiment 1 established that describing faces facilitated their later recognition. In Experiment 2, we argue that verbalization facilitated the recognition of faces that had been previously described, but not of faces intermingled with the described faces. In Experiment 3, the participants described (or did not, in the control condition) either differences or similarities between pairs of faces. Verbal facilitation was equivalent for both types of descriptions. Finally, in Experiment 4, the participants were instructed to generate either holistic or featural descriptors. Verbal facilitation was equivalent for both types of descriptors. We discuss these findings in terms of the nature of the verbalization that benefits face recognition.

show abstract

Section: Facilitation Versus Interferencecontrasting

confidence: 48%

Verbal facilitation of face recognition

Brown

Lloyd‐Jones

2005

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, we are currently testing how well lineup fairness measures can detect variations in lineup fairness (i.e., two or five fillers that match the target's description). Future research could also take a more systematic approach when examining the correspondence between descriptions and lineup members, such as measuring or varying the prototypicality of lineup member's features to determine whether this factor affects lineup fairness (e.g., Lindsay, Martin, & Webber, 1994). For example, if the description indicates the perpetrator was blond, are mock witnesses less likely to select a lineup member with dirty blond hair than one with platinum blond hair?…”

Section: Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating lineup fairness: Variations across methods and measures.

Mansour¹,

Beaudry²,

Kalmet³

et al. 2017

Law and Human Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Triers of fact sometimes consider lineup fairness when determining the suggestiveness of an identification procedure. Likewise, researchers often consider lineup fairness when comparing results across studies. Despite their importance, lineup fairness measures have received scant empirical attention and researchers inconsistently conduct and report mock-witness tasks and lineup fairness measures. We conducted a large-scale, online experiment (N = 1,010) to examine how lineup fairness measures varied with mock-witness task methodologies as well as to explore the validity and reliability of the measures. In comparison to descriptions compiled from multiple witnesses, when individual descriptions were presented in the mock-witness task, lineup fairness measures indicated a higher number of plausible lineup members but more bias toward the suspect. Target-absent lineups were consistently estimated to be fairer than target-present lineups—which is problematic because it suggests that lineups containing innocent suspects are less likely to be challenged in court than lineups containing guilty suspects. Correlations within lineup size measures and within some lineup bias measures indicated convergent validity and the correlations across the lineup size and lineup bias measures demonstrated discriminant validity. The reliability of lineup fairness measures across different descriptions was low and reliability across different sets of mock witnesses was moderate to high, depending on the measure. Researchers reporting lineup fairness measures should specify the type of description presented, the amount of detail in the description, and whether the mock witnesses viewed target-present and/or -absent lineups.

show abstract

“…We also expect those with ID to have poorer understanding of the purpose of a lineup task, be less likely to remember that the perpetrator may or may not be present, and be less likely to demonstrate an association between confidence and lineup accuracy. The lineups used in the present experiment have been used in previous published research (Wilcock et al 2005; and were developed using a match to description of culprit using a procedure based on that used by Lindsay, Martin, and Webber (1994). The perpetrator present lineups contained the perpetrator and five foils.…”

Section: Instructions Given To Witnesses Prior To Them Viewing An Idementioning

confidence: 99%