Eyewitness Racial Attitudes and Perpetrator Identification: The Lineup Method Matters

Studies asking witnesses to identify perpetrators from photo lineups have usually found that witness racial prejudice is unrelated to perpetrator identification accuracy. However, these studies obtained identifications from a photoarray in which photos were presented simultaneously. Study 1 used a procedure in which photos were presented sequentially. Results showed that when perpetrators were African-American, explicitly egalitarian witnesses more often made incorrect identification decisions than racially prejudiced witnesses. There were no explicit prejudice-related differences in decision accuracy rates when perpetrators were Caucasian. Results were similar, but limited to non-African-American witnesses, when implicit prejudice was assessed. Replicating results from the traditional simultaneous identification procedure, Study 2 did not yield a relation between racial prejudice and accuracy. Potential explanations and implications are discussed. ********** Eyewitness identifications of perpetrators are a crucial aspect of the criminal justice system, and often are made while viewing photo spreads (Ellison & Buckhout, 1981; Wells & Loftus, 2003). Such identifications can confirm that the person in custody more than simply resembles a witness' verbal description (Fisher, Geiselman, & Raymond, 1987) and can help to provide a convincing piece of evidence in a criminal trial (Wrightsman, 2000). However, recent experience has made it clear that mistaken identifications are prevalent in the criminal justice system (Kim, 2005). One organization reports that at least 204 cases have been overturned based on DNA evidence (Innocence Project, 2007). Eyewitness identifications typically play a role in such convictions (Wells, 1993), and in over 3/4 of the overturned cases, eyewitness testimony was a major factor in the convictions (Innocence Project, 2007). Given the knowledge that eyewitnesses are fallible, understanding the variables that contribute to eyewitness memory and perpetrator identification is crucial. One variable known to influence lineup identifications is the method used to identify suspects in photo spreads (Wrightsman, 2000). Traditionally, police have administered a simultaneous lineup in which (in its most common form) the witness sees six photos arrayed in a 2 x 3 grid. One photo is of the suspect and the other five are foils. However, recent research has offered several new recommendations for administration of line-ups (Wells, Small, Penrod, Malpass, Fulero, & Brimacombe, 1998). One of these recommendations suggests that lineup photos be presented sequentially rather than simultaneously. In a sequential lineup (Wells, 1984), participants are presented a series of single photographs in succession. Witnesses then make a single yes/no decision for each photograph. The witness is not told the number of photographs they will potentially see, they are not allowed to change a yes/no decision once it has been made, and they are not to see a photograph more than once. The revised sequential lineup procedure is designed to eliminate the tendency in simultaneous lineups for an eyewitness to select the person who looks most like the perpetrator (Wells et al., 1998). This similarity-based decision rule may produce an accurate identification when the perpetrator is in the lineup; however, when the perpetrator is not in the lineup, it will tend to produce false positive identifications. Some research suggests that the sequential lineup procedure tends to reduce the number of false identifications (Wells, 1984). Hence, the sequential presentation procedure is beginning to make its way into police practice (Perrotta, 2002). There are a number of concerns regarding the use of sequential lineups in actual police policy. McQuinston-Surret, Malpass, and Tredoux (2006) have suggested that it might be premature to use sequential lineups in the field, noting that the evidence supporting the use of the sequential procedure is equivocal and there are numerous methodological limitations to the practice. …