The Performance of Eyewitnesses with Intellectual Disabilities on Photographic Identification Line-ups

Wilcock, Rachel; Henry, Lucy A.

doi:10.1080/1034912x.2013.757141

Cited by 3 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the current experiment, it is possible that adults with ID were more confident about their responses to the misleading questions for all question types because they had difficultly monitoring the accuracy of their memories. This explanation is consistent with recent research showing that adults with ID had higher confidence—but lower accuracy—than adults without ID in identifying a suspect in a line‐up (Wilcock & Henry, ). Indeed, the authors suggested that adults with ID ‘lack the metacognitive abilities to assess their own recall accuracy’ (p. 50).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

The Effect of Different Types of Leading Questions on Adult Eyewitnesses with Mild Intellectual Disabilities

Bowles

Sharman

2013

Applied Cognitive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Adults with an intellectual disability (ID) are often considered poor witnesses; however, this may depend on the type of questions asked during investigative interviews. We examined the impact of four different types of misleading questions commonly used in interviews. These questions varied in their specificity, presumptive knowledge and structure (open or closed). Forty-one adults with a mild ID watched a short film; they were then interviewed about what had happened. Half of the questions contained misleading information. In a later recognition test, participants showed a misinformation effect: they correctly recognised more items about which they had received control information than the items about which they had received misleading information. Closer inspection of the data revealed that both closed and open presumptive questions generated the largest misinformation effects. These findings highlight the vulnerability of adults with an ID to misleading questions, specifically those that presume certain information to be true.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

The Effect of Different Types of Leading Questions on Adult Eyewitnesses with Mild Intellectual Disabilities

Bowles

Sharman

2013

Applied Cognitive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The study found that despite both groups making the same amount of correct identification, participants with intellectual disabilities were more likely to make a false identification and were also more prone to guessing. Similarly, Wilcock and Henry (2013) found that witness with intellectual disabilities performed poorer in both a target-present and target-absent photographic line-up and were more likely to make a false identification in both conditions. Interestingly, Wilcock and Henry (2013) also found that witnesses with intellectual disability were more confident in their decisions although there was no positive correlation between accuracy and confidence, suggesting that those with intellectual disability lacked insight into their cognitive deficits related to recall accuracy.…”

Section: Brain Injury and Line-up Identificationmentioning

confidence: 83%

“…A limited number of studies have been conducted, however, into the utility or effectiveness of line-up identification methods with witnesses who have cognitive impairments resulting from circumstances such as intellectual disability (e.g. Wilcock & Henry, 2013) and developmental disorders (e.g. Norheim & Ferraro, 2016).…”

Section: Brain Injury and Line-up Identificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

A preliminary investigation on the performance of brain-injured witnesses on target-absent line-up procedures

Gibert

Mojtahedi

2018

Psychiatry, Psychology and Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The current study was a preliminary investigation that aimed to compare the performance of eyewitnesses with and without a brain injury on two target-absent line-up procedures: a simultaneous procedure and a sequential procedure with confidence ratings. A 2 Â 2 design (N ¼ 25) was employed, where both brain-injured (n ¼ 15) and non-braininjured (n ¼ 10) participants were shown a short video of a non-violent crime taking place before taking part in either a simultaneous or sequential target-absent line-up. Participants' general cognitive abilities and memory recall accuracy were also measured. Results found no significant differences in false identification rates between brain-injured and non-braininjured witnesses. It was also found that participants with a greater memory accuracy were in fact more likely to make a false identification. The implications and limitations of the study are discussed.

show abstract

“…Although many crime victims are acquainted with their perpetrator, some are not, and police will likely ask the potential witness to attempt to identify a suspect. Wilcock and Henry (2013) found that adults with ID had poorer performance in identifying perpetrators during a line-up compared with adults without ID. Yet, although performance was poorer, Gawrylowicz et al (2013) found that the difference was not significant and indicated that individuals with ID may be of assistance to the police during eyewitness tasks that rely on face recognition, such as identification in a line-up or looking though a mug-shot book.…”

Section: Identification Of Alleged Perpetratorsmentioning

confidence: 89%

Intellectual and developmental disabilities and the criminal justice system.

Olley¹,

Cox²

2021

APA Handbook of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities: Clinical and Educational Implications: Prevention, Intervention, A

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

witnesses, suspects, defendants, and incarcerated individuals. This chapter reviews the published clinical and research literature on people with IDD in each of these roles, beginning with a historical perspective. HISTORY OF ID AND THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEMThe characteristics associated with ID have almost certainly been recognized since the beginning of civilization (Berkson, 2004) and formally recognized as a condition since at least the era of ancient imperial Rome (Berkson, 2006). Many terms have been used to identify the condition, most of them offensive to the modern ear. This chapter uses the terms that were common in the historical period under review (e.g., "idiot"). The manner in which societies have treated children and adults with ID has varied. As Berkson (2004) noted, they have been "adulated, cared for, ignored, or rejected " (p. 196).The contemporary literature focuses extensively on the problem of people with ID as victims of crime, but the available historical writing is concerned primarily with people with ID as criminals. Wickham (2013) pointed out that English common law originating in the mid-1100s granted individuals with mental disability less culpability in criminal matters.

show abstract

The Performance of Eyewitnesses with Intellectual Disabilities on Photographic Identification Line-ups

Abstract: This is the unspecified version of the paper.This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. Permanent repository link:

Cited by 3 publications

References 15 publications

The Effect of Different Types of Leading Questions on Adult Eyewitnesses with Mild Intellectual Disabilities

The Effect of Different Types of Leading Questions on Adult Eyewitnesses with Mild Intellectual Disabilities

A preliminary investigation on the performance of brain-injured witnesses on target-absent line-up procedures

Intellectual and developmental disabilities and the criminal justice system.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About