Factors Affecting the Accuracy of Eyewitness Identification

In lieu of an abstract, below is the article's first paragraph. We've all experienced, at one time or another, our own memories failing us at times, and this may have been due to a number of factors. Perhaps the issue at hand was not important to us at the time, and therefore we devoted little attention to it. But imagine being in the scenario Wells (1993) suggests in the following passage: Suppose that you were an eyewitness to a crime. Perhaps it was a theft, a burglary, a mugging, a drive-by shooting, or a robbery. You might or might not have known that a crime was being committed at the time; perhaps you saw someone exit a building that exploded a short time later. Perhaps you were the victim or perhaps you were a bystander. Regardless of the circumstances, there exists some memory trace, however strong or weak, that could have important consequences for the course of justice. Because you have seen the culprit, the police ask you to give a description. Later, perhaps only hours or perhaps months later, you are called to the police station to attempt an identification of the culprit. You are then shown a lineup or a photo spread and asked to indicate whether the person you saw on that fateful occasion is one of the people standing or pictured before you on this day. (p. 553) Many factors influence the accuracy of recall and identity of a face, some of which we have little to no control over. Given the right conditions, these factors will influence how one's memory recalls the specific features that make one face distinct from another. This article is available in The Review: A Journal of Undergraduate Student Research: http://fisherpub.sjfc. edu/ur/vol6/iss1/9 Factors Affecting the Accuracy of Eyewitness Identification By Sheena M. Lorenzo We've all experienced, at one time or another, our own memories failing us at times, and this may have been due to a number of factors. Perhaps the issue at hand was not important to us at the time, and therefore we devoted little attention to it. But imagine being in the scenario Wells (1993) suggests in the following passage: Suppose that you were an eyewitness to a crime. Perhaps it was a theft, a burglary, a mugging, a drive-by shooting, or a robbery. You might or might not have known that a crime was being committed at the time; perhaps you saw someone exit a building that exploded a short time later. Perhaps you were the victim or perhaps you were a bystander. Regardless of the circumstances, there exists some memory trace, however strong or weak, that could have important consequences for the course of justice. Because you have seen the culprit, the police ask you to give a description. Later, perhaps only hours or perhaps months later, you are called to the police station to attempt an identification of the culprit. You are then shown a lineup or a photo spread and asked to indicate whether the person you saw on that fateful occasion is one of the people standing or pictured before you on this day. (p. 553) Many factors influence the accuracy of recall and identity of a face, some of which we have little to no control over. Given the right conditions, these factors will influence how one's memory recalls the specific features that make one face distinct from another. Eyewitness testimony, most often serving as direct evidence in court, commonly proves to be a strong influence on juries (MacLin, et al., 2001). Unfortunately, a series of recent DNA exoneration cases shows evidence of the flaws in eyewitness identification, and how it may lead to the conviction of innocent people (MacLin, et al., 2001). MacLin and colleagues (2001), in a study of face recognition, cited four specific factors that influence an eyewitness's viewing conditions. These include: exposure time (the extent of time a person has to view the face), delay (amount of time between initial presentation of a stimulus and subsequent recognition), attention and arousal (the concentration of mental effort), and weapon focus (the presence of a weapon). In addition to these factors, Searcy and colleagues (1999) studied how age affects accuracy in face recognition. Their studies of aging and face recognition show a positive correlation between age (beginning at age 18) and false identification of new faces. Wells (1993) argues that the degree of certainty with which a false identification is made is a greater factor in the miscarriage of justice than the misidentification itself. He claims that the more similarities that exist between the witness's memory trace of the perpetrator and the identified person, the greater the degree of certainty that will be expressed in the identification. The more certainty an eyewitness expresses, the more likely they are to be seen by a jury as a credible witness. Chambers (2001) looks at suggestive questioning and biases in lineups as factors in misidentification. She reviews the possibility and result of misleading questions, and biased lineups and/or photo spreads. Finally, Shaw and Skolnick (1994), and Wright, Boyd, and Tredoux (2001) studied sex differences and the own-race biases, respectively, in face identification. The ownrace bias, or cross-race effect, states that faces of one's own race are more easily identified than faces of another, less familiar race (Meissner, et al., 2001). These nine factors (exposure time, delay, attention and arousal, weapon focus, age, degree of certainty, suggestive questioning and biased lineups, sex differences, and own-race bias) are of the most prominent factors, both internal (psychological and/or biological) and external (environmental), which affect face recognition and identification. All the abovementioned factors affecting eyewitness identification will now be further explored. Viewing Conditions There are four factors stated in MacLin and colleagues' 2001 study, which involve viewing conditions in the recognition of a face. These are: exposure time, delay, attention and arousal, and weapon focus. The length of time a witness has to observe a face affects their subsequent capacity to recognize that face (MacLin, et al., 2001). This is most commonly referred to as exposure, or study time. In a study conducted by Reynolds & Pezdek (1992 as cited in MacLin, et al., 2001), researchers had subjects view slides with different versions of faces for either twenty seconds or three seconds. As would be expected, they found that the longer the subjects had to view the face, the better their performance on subsequent recognition tasks. In relation to this, a 1979 study by Light, Kayra-Stuart, and Hollander (as cited in MacLin, et al., 2001; Sporer, et al., 1996) found that the difference in exposure time improved memory of unusual faces (highly attractive and highly unattractive) but had no influence on typical, neutrally rated faces. Note that in this study, participants viewed