Parallelism in eyewitness and mock witness identifications

Corey, Deb; Malpass, Roy S.; McQuiston, Dawn E.

doi:10.1002/(sici)1099-0720(199911)13:1+<s41::aid-acp632>3.0.co;2-a

Cited by 17 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…When evaluating real lineups, researchers typically present mock witnesses with descriptions from actual eyewitnesses (e.g., Brigham, Meissner, & Wasserman, 1999;Corey, Malpass, & McQuiston, 1999). Studies using laboratory-constructed lineups have used descriptions from one or more independent individuals in pilot testing (e.g., Lindsay, Ross, Smith, & Flanigan, 1999;Mansour et al, 2012), the eyewitness-participants themselves (e.g.…”

Section: Descriptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Only one study we are aware of has taken this approach to date. Corey et al (1999) manipulated whether LINEUP FAIRNESS MEASURES 9 the description used in a mock-witness task contained distinctive descriptors (e.g., the perpetrator had squinty eyes). When the suspect did not stand out because of these descriptors, effective size and functional size were higher and defendant bias was lower than when he did stand out.…”

Section: Reliability Across Descriptions (Alternate-forms Reliability)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…First, our targets varied little in terms of ethnicity, age, and distinctive features. Distinctiveness, as well as attractiveness, of suspects and fillers affect other judgments (e.g., Valentine & Bruce, 1986;Zebrowitz & Montepare, 2008) and, thus, may affect lineup fairness measures, particularly if mentioned in the description (Corey et al, 1999). Nonetheless, it is unlikely that additional diversity in the stimuli would reduce the variability in the lineup fairness measures-rather it may instead increase it.…”

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Evaluating lineup fairness: Variations across methods and measures.

Mansour¹,

Beaudry²,

Kalmet³

et al. 2017

Law and Human Behavior

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

Section: Descriptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Reliability Across Descriptions (Alternate-forms Reliability)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evaluating lineup fairness: Variations across methods and measures.

Mansour¹,

Beaudry²,

Kalmet³

et al. 2017

Law and Human Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Statistical measures of lineup size such as Effective Size and Tredoux' E take into account the total number of mockwitnesses evaluating the lineup and the frequency with which each lineup member is chosen (Malpass, 1981;Tredoux, 1998). McQuiston, 1999;Doob & Kirshenbaum, 1973;Malpass, 1981;Malpass & Devine, 1983;Wells, Leippe, & Ostrom, 1979). Although the logic underlying the mockwitness paradigm is sensible, its validity as a lineup evaluation procedure is based on a number of theoretical and practical assumptions that seem not yet to have been subject to empirical examination.…”

Section: Assumptions Of the Mockwitness Paradigm: Empirically Sound?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is done as an attempt to avoid a shift in choice criterion as participants approach the final lineup members Lindsay & Wells, 1985;Melara, DeWitt-Rickards, & O'Brien, 1989). 8 Lineup size is calculated using Tredoux' E, a statistic favored over Effective Size (Malpass, 1981) because a sampling distribution can be computed, allowing for statistical analysis (Tredoux, 1998; see Corey, Malpass, & McQuiston, 1999).…”

Section: Manipulation Checkmentioning

confidence: 99%