Browsing by Person "Lindsay, R. C. L."

Now showing 1 - 5 of 5

Are multiple-trial experiments appropriate for eyewitness identification studies? Accuracy, choosing, and confidence across trials
(Springer, 2017-04-21) Mansour, Jamal K.; Beaudry, J. L.; Lindsay, R. C. L.
Eyewitness identification experiments typically involve a single trial: a participant views an event and subsequently makes a lineup decision. Compared to this single-trial paradigm, multiple-trial designs are more efficient but significantly reduce ecological validity and may affect the strategies participants use to make lineup decisions. We examined the effects of a number of forensically-relevant variables (i.e., memory strength, type of disguise, degree of disguise, and lineup type) on eyewitness accuracy, choosing, and confidence across 12 target-present and 12 target-absent lineup trials (N = 349; 8,376 lineup decisions). Rates of correct rejections and choosing (across both target-present and -absent lineups) did not vary across the 24 trials as reflected by main effects or interactions with trial number. Trial number had a significant but trivial quadratic effect on correct identifications (OR = 0.99) and interacted significantly, but again trivially, with disguise type (OR = 1.00). Trial number did not significantly influence participants' confidence in correct identifications, confidence in correct rejections, or confidence in target-absent selections. Thus, multiple-trial designs appear to have minimal effects on eyewitness accuracy, choosing, and confidence. Researchers should consider using multiple-trial designs for conducting eyewitness identification experiments.
Evaluating lineup fairness: Variations across methods and measures
(American Psychological Association, 2016-09-29) Mansour, Jamal K.; Beaudry, Jennifer L.; Kalmet, Natalie; Bertrand, Michelle I.; Lindsay, R. C. L.
Triers of fact sometimes consider lineup fairness when determining the suggestiveness of an identification procedure. Likewise, researchers often consider lineup fairness when comparing results across studies. Despite their importance, lineup fairness measures have received scant empirical attention and researchers inconsistently conduct and report mock-witness tasks and lineup fairness measures. We conducted a large-scale, online experiment (N = 1010) to examine how lineup fairness measures varied with mock-witness task methodologies as well as to explore the validity and reliability of the measures. In comparison to descriptions compiled from multiple witnesses, when individual descriptions were presented in the mock-witness task, lineup fairness measures indicated a higher number of plausible lineup members but more bias towards the suspect. Target-absent lineups were consistently estimated to be fairer than target-present lineups-which is problematic because it suggests that lineups containing innocent suspects are less likely to be challenged in court than lineups containing guilty suspects. Correlations within lineup size measures and within some lineup bias measures indicated convergent validity and the correlations across the lineup size and lineup bias measures demonstrated discriminant validity. The reliability of lineup fairness measures across different descriptions was low and reliability across different sets of mock witnesses was moderate to high, depending on the measure. Researchers reporting lineup fairness measures should specify the type of description presented, the amount of detail in the description, and whether the mock witnesses viewed target-present and/or -absent lineups.
Examining how lineup practices of Canadian and U.S. police officers adhere to their national best practice recommendations
(2018-11-25) Bertrand, Michelle I.; Lindsay, R. C. L.; Mansour, Jamal K.; Beaudry, Jennifer L.; Kalmet, Natalie; Melsom, Elisabeth I.
Canadian (N = 117) and U.S. (N = 167) police officers completed a survey about their lineup construction and administration practices. We compared their responses to national policy recommendations in both countries, which had five similar and four different recommendations. We expected that if officers' lineup procedures corresponded with policy recommendations, the countries would have similar procedures when recommendations were similar, but different procedures in line with their respective policies when recommendations were different. We generally found the predicted pattern of results. Findings were especially striking when the policies differed. Some procedures were largely in line with policy recommendations (e.g., double-blind testing), others corresponded to some extent (e.g., sequential lineups), and others were largely not followed (e.g., providing instruction that it is as important to exonerate the innocent as it is to convict the guilty). We cautiously interpret these findings as demonstrating that policy has some influence on procedures. However, even though our hypotheses were generally supported, there was considerable variation in procedures that did not correspond with policy recommendations. Our findings illustrate the importance of assessing user reactions to policy recommendations and examining barriers to policy implementation.
Face Recognition in Eyewitness Memory
(Oxford University Press, 2011-07) Lindsay, R. C. L.; Mansour, Jamal K.; Bertrand, M. I.; Kalmet, N.; Melsom, E.; Calder, Andy; Haxby, James; Johnson, Mark; Rhodes, Gillian
Two types of variables impact face recognition: estimator variables that cannot be controlled and system variables that are under direct control by the criminal justice system. This article addresses some of the reasons that eyewitnesses are prone to making errors, particularly false identifications. It provides a discussion of the differences between typical facial memory and eyewitness studies and shows that the two areas generally find similar results. It reviews estimator variable effects and focuses on system variables. Traditional facial recognition researchers rarely study system variables but reveal important factors that police and policy makers should consider with regard to eyewitness identification and the courts. It concludes that there is still room for considerable improvement in identification procedures and wants to encourage more system variable research as a means of reducing wrongful convictions.
Factors Influencing the Eyewitness Identification Accuracy of Child Witnesses
(Irwin Law, 2011-07) Kalmet, N.; Lindsay, R. C. L.; Bertrand, M. I.; Mansour, Jamal K.; Anand, Sanjeev