Witnesses' memory for events and faces under elevated levels of intoxication.

Research on alcohol and witness memory has burgeoned over the last decade. However, most studies have tested participants at relatively low breath alcohol concentration (BAC) levels, unrepresentative of those encountered by officers in the field. To examine how higher intoxication levels might impair witness memory for events and faces, the current research tested participants' ability to recall a mock crime at elevated BAC levels (>.08%). The BAC levels of bar patrons (N = 138) were recorded before witnessing a video-taped mock crime. Participants were then interviewed using free recall and cued questions and shown a six-person target-present or target-absent lineup. Results show that alcohol negatively affected both the quantity and quality of recall. Regardless of question format, alcohol also reduced the percentage of accurate information elicited from witnesses; however, only cued questions increased the percentage of inaccurate information reported. Intoxication had no effect on identification accuracy. These findings suggest that the encoding and storage systems for faces and events may be impacted differently by alcohol. Our results also highlight the importance of including higher BAC levels when examining the effects of alcohol on witness memory.

The verbal facilitation effect: re-reading person descriptions as a system variable to improve identification performance.

When witnesses report a crime, police usually ask for a description of the perpetrator. Several studies suggested that verbalising faces leads to a detriment in identification performance (verbal overshadowing effect [VOE]) but the effect has been difficult to replicate. Here, we sought to reverse the VOE by inducing context reinstatement as a system variable through re-reading one's own description before an identification task. Participants (N = 208) watched a video film and were then dismissed (control group), only described the perpetrator, or described and later re-read their own descriptions before identification in either target-present or target-absent lineups after a 2-day or a 5-week delay. Identification accuracy was significantly higher after re-reading (85.0%) than in the no description control group (62.5%) irrespective of target presence. Data were internally replicated using a second target and corroborated by several small meta-analyses. Identification accuracy was related to description quality. Moreover, there was a tendency towards a verbal facilitation effect (VFE) rather than a VOE. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses confirm that our findings are not due to a shift in response bias but truly reflect improvement of recognition performance. Differences in the ecological validity of study paradigms are discussed.

When does evidence of eyewitness confidence inflation affect judgments in a criminal trial?.

Two studies investigated perceptions of eyewitness confidence inflation: increases in a witness's confidence between the time of the identification and the trial. Experiment 1 (N = 90) demonstrated that, for White participants, assessments of the strength of the defense case, the eyewitness's view, and participants' confidence in the eyewitness's accuracy were more favorable to the defense when there was evidence that the eyewitness's confidence increased over time (mere inflation condition), compared with a control condition. In addition, assessments of the defendant's guilt and the eyewitness's accuracy were more favorable to the defense when the eyewitness was aggressively challenged about the change in her confidence report (inflation + challenge). Experiment 2 (N = 360) demonstrated that, for Hispanic participants, sensitivity to confidence inflation did not interact with manipulations of the eyewitness's or defendant's race (White vs. Hispanic). In addition, the confidence inflation effect did not replicate with the Hispanic participants. Results are interpreted in terms of the ingroup bias in legal judgments and directions for future research.

Validity of the mockwitness paradigm: testing the assumptions.

Mockwitness identifications are used to provide a quantitative measure of lineup fairness. Some theoretical and practical assumptions of this paradigm have not been studied in terms of mockwitnesses' decision processes and procedural variation (e.g., instructions, lineup presentation method), and the current experiment was conducted to empirically evaluate these assumptions. Four hundred and eighty mockwitnesses were given physical information about a culprit, received 1 of 4 variations of lineup instructions, and were asked to identify the culprit from either a fair or unfair sequential lineup containing 1 of 2 targets. Lineup bias estimates varied as a result of lineup fairness and the target presented. Mockwitnesses generally reported that the target's physical description was their main source of identifying information. Our findings support the use of mockwitness identifications as a useful technique for sequential lineup evaluation, but only for mockwitnesses who selected only 1 lineup member. Recommendations for the use of this evaluation procedure are discussed.