Distinguishing accurate from inaccurate eyewitness identifications with an optional deadline procedure

Authors: Brewer, Neil¹; Weber, Nathan¹; Clark, Abigail¹; Wells, Gary²

Source: Psychology, Crime and Law, Volume 14, Number 5, October 2008 , pp. 397-414(18)

Publisher: Routledge, part of the Taylor & Francis Group

Key:

- Free Content

- New Content

- Subscribed Content

- Free Trial Content

Abstract:

Two experiments examined the efficacy of an optional deadline lineup procedure for distinguishing correct from incorrect eyewitness identification decisions. The procedure involved briefly presenting the lineup, removing the lineup from view, then giving participants the option of either making an identification decision or viewing the lineup again. When compared with participants operating under a forced deadline (i.e. forced to respond after the brief presentation) or standard lineup instructions, the optional deadline procedure identified participants with an impressive probability of having made a correct identification when used with target-present lineups and biased instructions. With unbiased instructions, the optional deadline produced clear discrimination between correct and incorrect identification decisions for choosers and, importantly, also for non-choosers. Possible strategies for improving the efficacy of the procedure are suggested.

Keywords: eyewitness identification; response latency; deadline; automatic decision processes

Document Type: Research article

DOI: 10.1080/10683160701770229

Affiliations: 1: School of Psychology, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia 2: Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, USA

The full text electronic article is available for purchase. You will be able to download the full text electronic article after payment.

$45.09 plus tax Refund Policy