Post‐identification feedback effects: Investigators and evaluators

Abstract

We investigated the effects of post-identification feedback and viewing conditions on beliefs and interviewing tactics of participant-investigators, crime reports of participant-witnesses and participant-evaluators' credibility judgments of the witnesses. Study 1 participants assumed the roles of witness and investigator (N ¼ 167 pairs). Witnesses' view of a simulated crime video was manipulated by distance from viewing monitor: 2 or 9 ft. Participants made a line-up identification and received either positive feedback or no feedback. Significant effects for witnesses and investigators were associated with viewing condition and post-identification feedback. Interviews between investigator-witness pairs were videotaped. Investigators asked more positive, leading questions when they were led to believe that the witness had identified the suspect. In Study 2 evaluators (N ¼ 302) viewed the witness-investigator interviews. Viewing condition had no effect on judgments of witness credibility but positive post-identification feedback led evaluators to judge witnesses as more credible than witnesses who received no feedback.

Post-identification feedback to eyewitnesses impairs evaluators’ abilities to discriminate between accurate and mistaken testimony.

“…Our interest is similar to the Douglass et al (2010) and MacLean et al (2011) studies in one respect but importantly distinct in another respect. It is similar in the sense that we wanted to know how postidentification feedback affects the perceived credibility of eyewitness-identification testimony when the witnesses testify in their own words.…”

“…Adding some uncertainty to our prediction is the fact that postidentification feedback studies to date have almost exclusively measured feedback effects using pencil-and-paper or computer measures that constrain the witnesses to report their responses on Likert-type scales. Two exceptions, already mentioned earlier, had witnesses give testimony-like statements that were videotaped and shown to evaluators who made judgments about the believability of the testimony (Douglass et al, 2010; MacLean et al, 2011). However, those studies used only mistaken eyewitnesses and therefore could not address the question of whether confirming feedback harms evaluators’ abilities to discriminate between accurate and mistaken eyewitness testimony.…”

“…The empirical evidence indicates that people evaluate eyewitnesses’ identification testimonies by relying on cues such how confident witnesses are, what witnesses say about their viewing conditions, and how much attention witnesses say they paid during the witnessing episode (Bradfield & Wells, 2000). Moreover, there is evidence that giving confirming feedback to mistaken eyewitnesses leads witnesses to give more persuasive testimony that, when shown to participant-jurors, leads participant-jurors to higher rates of believing these mistaken-identification witnesses (Douglass et al, 2010; MacLean et al, 2011).…”

Eyewitness confidence malleability: Misinformation as post-identification feedback.

“…During a follow-up interview, police may ask witnesses to confirm or elaborate on details of their statement or their identification and these questions may be asked in a leading manner. In one study testing this process experimentally, participants were randomly assigned to serve as either a witness or investigator (Maclean, Brimacombe, Allison, Dahl, & Kadlec, 2011). Witnesses watched a mock crime video alone and were either given confirming feedback about their identification or not.…”

Investigating industrial investigation: Examining the impact of a priori knowledge and tunnel vision education.

“…Currently, much of the psychological literature dedicated to the social–cognitive factors that affect investigators’ decision making is couched in a criminal investigation context (e.g., Ask, Granhag, & Rebelius, 2011; Dahl, Brimacombe, & Lindsay, 2009; Kerstholt & Eikelboom, 2007; MacLean, Brimacombe, Alison, Dahl, & Kadlec, 2011). Industrial and criminal investigators both unearth evidence and build a case, but the two differ in important ways.…”