Running head: Relative judgment. When the relative judgment theory proved to be false

Abstract

A commonly accepted theory is that when witnesses can identify culprits in lineups, they will concentrate on him. On the other hand, when they cannot they compare between lineup members and choose the person most similar to the culprit. Therefore they will divide their gaze more equally between foils. An eye tracker was used with a 48-person lineup (four screens with twelve photos in each) in an attempt to demonstrate the superiority of gaze behavior over the verbal response. Surprisingly witnesses usually concentrated on some foil as much as they did on the target. Alternate theories are required to explain the reduction of false identifications in sequential lineups. The advantage of large lineups was demonstrated. Police may use them in conjunction with eye trackers to find culprits that witnesses focus on despite saying that they are absent, the only known method to increase correct identifications.

Comparing 48-Person Lineups with a 96-Person Lineup

“…The result has been a dramatic reduction in mistaken identifications at no cost to correct ones. For example, with a typical rate of 50% mistaken choices in the traditional six- Levi has conducted a number of experiments using a twominute video as the eyewitness event, and a 48-person lineup Levi [14][15][16][17][18][19][20], Levi & Menashe [21]. The rate of identifications of the target in target-present lineups was usually about 33%.…”

Evidence for the superiority of the large line-up.

“…If this is true we will be able to dispense with the unreliable verbal response of the witness and base identification decisions on their gaze pattern instead, increasing correct identifications and decreasing mistaken ones. This next experiment [20] used a 48 person line-up, rather than a 6 person simultaneous one, since the interest is increasing identifications in large line-ups.…”

Can we Increase Identifications in 48-Person Lineups by Asking for Ratings of All Lineup Members?

“…This is clearly a tremendous improvement. Early research seems to have discouraged exploring this approach [14][15][16]. However, this research showed only one photo at a time.…”