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.

Is it possible to use interpretative phenomenological analysis in research with people who have intellectual disabilities?

BACKGROUND: This paper examines the appropriateness of using interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) in research with people who have intellectual disabilities, focussing on quality. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search to identify published studies. We assessed the quality of the studies using a bespoke framework, adapted from previous reviews, and articles on indicators of "good" IPA work. RESULTS: Twenty-eight papers were reviewed. The studies were of varying quality: 6 (22%) papers were rated as "good" quality; 16 (57%) were "acceptable", and 6 (21%) were "poor." This ratio was comparable to that found in assessments of IPA papers in other domains, suggesting that issues of quality reflect researcher competence, rather than challenges with the population. CONCLUSIONS: IPA can be an appropriate methodology to use with people with intellectual disabilities. We encourage researchers to develop more detailed analyses, to provide more transparency about their sampling strategies, and more detail of the characteristics of their samples.