Discriminating between correct and incorrect eyewitness identifications: The use of appropriate cues.

Abstract

To explain fact finders' judgment accuracy when evaluating the accuracy of an identification decision we applied the Brunswikian lens model. Guided by this model we examined (a) which cues observers use to evaluate an identification decision and how they interpret them ("subjective utilities"); and (b) if these cues as perceived by observers are indeed related to identification accuracy ("ecological validities"). Ninety-six participant-observers were presented with 48 videotaped positive identification decisions. For half of the participants, a think-aloud method was employed to make discriminating cues more salient to observers; the other half retrospectively provided reasons for their decisions. As expected, discriminating cues were visible only when think-aloud protocols were used. However, observers' use of these cues as indicators of identification accuracy was independent of type of decision protocol. Thus, only in the think-aloud condition was a high correspondence between subjective utilities and ecological validities observed. Advantages of think-aloud methods and videotapes to increase fact finders' judgment accuracy when evaluating identification decisions are discussed. Additional data from a follow-up experiment replicating these findings with transcripts are presented in online supplementary material. (PsycINFO Database Record

Observer judgments of identification accuracy are affected by non‐valid cues: A Brunswikian lens model analysis

“…To construct the to‐be‐judged videos, a classical eyewitness identification experiment was conducted (for a detailed description, see Kaminski & Sporer, ). Based on this experiment, we randomly selected 24 correct identifications of the perpetrator from a target‐present lineup and 24 incorrect choices of an innocent lineup member from a target‐absent lineup.…”

“…Ninety‐six observer‐participants (32 male, 64 female; 75% students, 25% working) between the ages of 18 and 34 years ( Mdn = 23.0) each judged one of the 48 videotaped identification statements regarding a series of description qualities and perceived identification accuracy (see also Kaminski & Sporer, ). A 2 (objective identification accuracy: incorrect choice vs. correct choice) × 2 (type of decision protocol: retrospective reasoning vs. think‐aloud) × 2 (person and event descriptions: not presented vs. presented) factorial between‐participants design was used.…”

“…In these evaluation processes, an identification decision serves as a persuasive message that affects fact finders' judgments. Many studies have examined the persuasive impact of various aspects of an identification decision on observer judgments (i.e., witnessing conditions, post‐identification confidence, response latency, and self‐reports of witnesses' decision processes; e.g., Dunning & Stern, ; Kaminski & Sporer, ; Neal, Christiansen, Bornstein, & Robicheaux, ). In contrast, this study focused on the persuasive impact of different perceived behavior cues and quantitative and qualitative aspects of witnesses' descriptions of the perpetrator and the crime.…”

“…In this study, we applied the Brunswikian lens model (Brunswik, , ) to get a deeper insight into observers' judgments of identification accuracy (as proposed by Kaminski & Sporer, ). The model provides a theoretical framework to describe the relationship between the validity of certain perceived cues to predict an objective outcome on the one hand (ecological validities) and perceivers' usage of these cues to predict their judgments of this outcome on the other hand (subjective utilities).…”

“…Here, we contrasted ecological validities of observers' perceptions of behavior cues and of description characteristics (i.e., relationships between these characteristics and objective identification accuracy) with observers' usage of these cues (i.e., relationships between these characteristics and observer judgments) when evaluating the accuracy of an identification decision (Kaminski & Sporer, ).…”