The confidence-accuracy relationship for lineup decisions holds for the Dutch identification procedure.

Post-decision confidence from witnesses who make a positive identification decision can serve as a valuable indicator of identification accuracy under certain conditions. International best-practice guidelines therefore recommend asking witnesses to indicate their confidence following a selection from a lineup. Three experiments that used Dutch identification protocols, however, reported no significant post-decision confidence-accuracy association. To examine this conflict between the international and the Dutch literature, we tested the strength of the post-decision confidence-accuracy relationship for lineups that followed Dutch protocol in two ways: we conducted an experiment and re-analyzed two experiments that implemented Dutch lineup protocols. As expected, the post-decision confidence-accuracy relationship was strong for positive identifications and weak for negative identification decisions in our experiment. The re-analysis of the pre-existing data showed a strong effect for positive identification decisions of participants up to the age of 40 years. For exploratory purposes, we also tested the confidence-accuracy relationship between lineup administrators' perception of witnesses' confidence and eyewitness identification accuracy. In our experiment, the relationship was strong for choosers and weak for nonchoosers. The re-analysis of pre-existing data showed no correlation between confidence and accuracy, unless we excluded adults over 40 of age. We recommend adapting the Dutch identification guidelines to reflect the current and previous findings on the post-decision confidence-accuracy relationship.

Showup identification decisions for multiple perpetrator crimes: Testing for sequential dependencies.

Research in perception and recognition demonstrates that a current decision (i) can be influenced by previous ones (i-j), meaning that subsequent responses are not always independent. Experiments 1 and 2 tested whether initial showup identification decisions impact choosing behavior for subsequent showup identification responses. Participants watched a mock crime film involving three perpetrators and later made three showup identification decisions, one showup for each perpetrator. Across both experiments, evidence for sequential dependencies for choosing behavior was not consistently predictable. In Experiment 1, responses on the third, target-present showup assimilated towards previous choosing. In Experiment 2, responses on the second showup contrasted previous choosing regardless of target-presence. Experiment 3 examined whether differences in number of test trials in the eyewitness (vs. basic recognition) paradigm could account for the absence of hypothesized ability to predict patterns of sequential dependencies in Experiments 1 and 2. Sequential dependencies were detected in recognition decisions over many trials, including recognition for faces: the probability of a yes response on the current trial increased if the previous response was also yes (vs. no). However, choosing behavior on previous trials did not predict individual recognition decisions on the current trial. Thus, while sequential dependencies did arise to some extent, results suggest that the integrity of identification and recognition decisions are not likely to be impacted by making multiple decisions in a row.

Face value: testing the utility of contextual face cues for face recognition.

The presence of multiple faces during a crime may provide a naturally-occurring contextual cue to support eyewitness recognition for those faces later. Across two experiments, we sought to investigate mechanisms underlying previously-reported cued recognition effects, and to determine whether such effects extended to encoding conditions involving more than two faces. Participants studied sets of individual faces, pairs of faces, or groups of four faces. At test, participants in the single-face condition were tested only on those individual faces without cues. Participants in the two and four-face conditions were tested using no cues, correct cues (a face previously studied with the target test face), or incorrect cues (a never-before-seen face). In Experiment 2, associative encoding was promoted by a rating task. Neither hit rates nor false-alarm rates were significantly affected by cue type or face encoding condition in Experiment 1, but cuing of any kind (correct or incorrect) in Experiment 2 appeared to provide a protective buffer to reduce false-alarm rates through a less liberal response bias. Results provide some evidence that cued recognition techniques could be useful to reduce false recognition, but only when associative encoding is strong.