The Z Generation: Examining Perpetrator Descriptions and Lineup Identification Procedures

Pozzulo, Joanna; Dempsey, Julie; Pettalia, Jennifer

doi:10.1007/s11896-012-9107-5

Cited by 15 publications

(50 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This suggests that in target-absent lineups, participants were as likely to make a correct rejection when presented with a simultaneous lineup as they were when presented with an eliminationplus lineup. This result is surprising, given that a number of studies have found that the elimination procedures are extremely beneficial in increasing correct rejections, and therefore reducing false identifications, when compared to more standard lineup procedures (Humphries et al, 2012;Pozzulo et al, , 2013Pozzulo et al, , 2015. However, the current study did find a trend in this direction, such that the elimination-plus lineup had a higher rate of correct rejections compared to the simultaneous lineup (.69 vs. .58, respectively).…”

Section: Identification Procedurescontrasting

confidence: 92%

“…Interestingly, they found that the elimination-plus procedure resulted in significantly more correct rejections in target-absent lineups when compared to the simultaneous procedure. The results of Sheahan et al (2017) are comparable to research utilizing the standard elimination lineup, which suggests that the elimination lineup procedure is beneficial in reducing false identifications in target-absent lineups (e.g., Humphries et al, 2012;Pozzulo et al, 2013). For example, Humphries and colleagues (2013) found marginally significant differences amongst the correct rejection rates across the elimination and simultaneous lineups.…”

Section: Identification Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 61%

“…More specifically, if the suspect survives judgment 1, that is, the suspect is selected as looking most like the perpetrator, the likelihood of that person being identified as the guilty suspect increases. Previous research has found that the guilty suspect typically survives judgment 1 at a higher rate than any other lineup members, however, correct identification at judgment 2 (i.e., when the eyewitness is required to make a yes/no judgment) decreases (Humphries et al, 2012;Pozzulo, Dempsey, Pettalia, 2013). It is critical to note that survival status is not an identification decision and should not be used as identification evidence.…”

Section: Lineup Presentation and Accuracymentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Furthermore, Pozzulo et al (2013) suggest that the combination of the elimination procedure and survival status creates the potential for the elimination procedure to be superior to the simultaneous or sequential procedures. Specifically, survival status provides information that may be indicative of the suspect's guilt.…”

Section: Lineup Presentation and Accuracymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The elimination-plus procedure (Pica & Pozzulo, 2017a) is a newly modified version of the elimination lineup created by Pozzulo and Lindsay (1998). When compared to the simultaneous procedure, the standard elimination lineup has been found to have a higher rate of correct rejections in target-absent lineups, but also a higher rate of false rejections in target-present lineups (e.g., Pozzulo & Balfour, 2006;Pozzulo et al, 2013).…”

Section: Identification Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Examining Lineup Identification as a Function of Foil Similarity and Lineup Procedure

Pratt¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The current study examined the effect of lineup procedure and foil similarity on identification accuracy. This study presented adults (N = 287) with either a modified lineup procedure, referred to as the elimination-plus procedure, or the simultaneous procedure. The level of similarity between the foil photographs and the target photo was manipulated (i.e., high similarity or low similarity) in addition to whether the target was present or absent in the lineup. Results from the current study indicate higher rates of correct identification for the simultaneous rather than the elimination-plus procedure and comparable rates of correct rejection across the two lineups. Additionally, similar to previous research, identification accuracy was highest in low similarity conditions compared to high similarity conditions. No interactions were found. The elimination-plus procedure is beneficial as it provides an additional confidence rating, taken after judgment 1. Implications of these findings and suggestions for future research are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Identification Procedurescontrasting

confidence: 92%

Section: Identification Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 61%

Section: Lineup Presentation and Accuracymentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Lineup Presentation and Accuracymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Identification Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Examining Lineup Identification as a Function of Foil Similarity and Lineup Procedure

Pratt¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Testing the efficacy of the cognitive interview to road traffic accident investigations

Maulina,

Irwanda,

Guritnaningsih

et al. 2024

Applied Cognitive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the current set of experiments, we examined the effectiveness of the Cognitive Interview (CI) on memory for traffic accidents. Three online experiments were conducted among Indonesian young motorcyclists who had an accident experience. Participants were interviewed about their most memorable accident experience, either with a CI or a Standard Interview (SI) method (Experiment 1). We added the time delay as the second independent variable (less than a month versus between 6 and 10 months) in Experiment 2. In Experiment 3, the interview methods were compared across two age groups (adolescents versus young adults). In all experiments, the CI led to more event‐related and peripheral recall than the SI. Furthermore, this effect persisted even when the event happened a long time ago and was replicated in both age groups. Our results show empirical evidence for the effectiveness of the CI in a traffic accident context, especially in a non‐WEIRD country.

show abstract

The elimination‐plus lineup: Testing a modified lineup procedure with confidence

Pica

Pozzulo

2017

Journal Invest Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study examined whether a modified form of a preidentification confidence rating would provide evidence of a suspect's guilt in addition to the identification decision confidence.Participants (N = 241) viewed a videotaped mock crime and were presented with a target-present or target-absent simultaneous, sequential, elimination, or elimination-plus lineup procedure; both elimination procedures required 2 separate judgments from the witness (i.e., relative and absolute). The elimination-plus procedure was identical to that of the elimination procedure with the addition of the confidence rating in between judgment 1 and judgment 2.Confidence after judgment 1, confidence after judgment 2, and the average of the 2 confidence ratings with the elimination-plus procedure significantly predicted accuracy for choosers. Given that confidence has been recognised by the Supreme Court of the United States, these results shed light on a novel way of utilising confidence in the investigative process. KEYWORDS eyewitness confidence, eyewitness identification, investigative procedure, lineup procedure

show abstract

The Z Generation: Examining Perpetrator Descriptions and Lineup Identification Procedures

Cited by 15 publications

References 37 publications

Examining Lineup Identification as a Function of Foil Similarity and Lineup Procedure

Examining Lineup Identification as a Function of Foil Similarity and Lineup Procedure

Testing the efficacy of the cognitive interview to road traffic accident investigations

The elimination‐plus lineup: Testing a modified lineup procedure with confidence

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About