Enabling witnesses to actively explore faces and reinstate study-test pose during a lineup increases discriminability.

Accurate witness identification is a cornerstone of police inquiries and national security investigations. However, witnesses can make errors. We experimentally tested whether an interactive lineup, a recently introduced procedure that enables witnesses to dynamically view and explore faces from different angles, improves the rate at which witnesses identify guilty over innocent suspects compared to procedures traditionally used by law enforcement. Participants encoded 12 target faces, either from the front or in profile view, and then attempted to identify the targets from 12 lineups, half of which were target present and the other half target absent. Participants were randomly assigned to a lineup condition: simultaneous interactive, simultaneous photo, or sequential video. In the front-encoding and profile-encoding conditions, Receiver Operating Characteristics analysis indicated that discriminability was higher in interactive compared to both photo and video lineups, demonstrating the benefit of actively exploring the lineup members' faces. Signal-detection modeling suggested interactive lineups increase discriminability because they afford the witness the opportunity to view more diagnostic features such that the nondiagnostic features play a proportionally lesser role. These findings suggest that eyewitness errors can be reduced using interactive lineups because they create retrieval conditions that enable witnesses to actively explore faces and more effectively sample features.

A critical analysis of gender-based violence reporting and evidence building applications (GBVxTech) for capturing memory reports.

Introduction: Gender-based violence (GBV) is under-reported to the authorities owing to the stigma, shame, and fear of reprisal that surrounds these crimes. To address this, there has been an influx of technologies, including mobile phone and online applications that allow victim-survivors (hereafter, victims) to document and report GBV (hereafter referred to as GBVxTech). We critically analysed the extent to which GBVxTech applications align with the scientific knowledge base on gathering accounts of crimes from victims and witnesses. Methods: We identified 41 reporting and evidence building applications from around the world but found many (n = 19) were no longer accessible. A total of 13 applications met the study criteria and were available for download. We evaluated each application on how well its design and features align with established minimum best practice standards for gathering complete and accurate accounts from witnesses and victims, such as the pre-interview instructions (e.g., setting ground rules), questioning approach (e.g., using open-ended questions), and the adequacy of security features (e.g., password protection). Results and Discussion: We found most applications employ open questions, encourage victims to report information in an independent voice, and seek to elicit information pertinent to a criminal investigation. None of the applications use leading questions. However, most applications do not establish ground rules, and many use forced-choice questions, do not time stamp the information gathered, or document when users change their answers. Many applications have limited security features, potentially compromising users' safety. Further, some applications do not provide information about how to use the app, an informed consent procedure, or data usage information. We discuss the findings and offer recommendations for future GBVxTech development.

Does presenting perpetrator and innocent suspect faces from different facial angles influence the susceptibility of eyewitness memory? An investigation into the misinformation effect and eyewitness misidentification.

Introduction: This study investigated the effects of face angle congruency across stages of a misinformation paradigm on lineup discrimination accuracy. Methods: In a between-subjects design, participants viewed a mock crime with the perpetrator's face from the front or profile angle. They then read a news report featuring an innocent suspect's image from the same or different angle as the perpetrator had been shown. A subsequent lineup manipulated perpetrator presence and viewing angle of the lineup members, who were all shown either from the front or in profile. Results: No significant difference emerged in identification errors based on angle congruency between stages. However, accuracy was higher when faces were shown from the front angle, both during the initial event and the lineup, compared to the profile angle. Discussion: The results of this research underscore the importance of considering viewing angles in the construction of lineups.