Eyewitness identification and the selection of distracters for lineups.
- 1 February 1991
- journal article
- Published by American Psychological Association (APA) in Law and Human Behavior
- Vol. 15 (1) , 43-57
- https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01044829
Abstract
Previous treatments of eyewitness lineups have focused exclusively on the importance of homogeneity (similarity of common features) in the physical characteristics of lineup members. This has led to some confusion about the proper way to select distracters. We argue that distracters should not be selected for their similarity to the suspect but rather for their similarity to the witness's description of the culprit. The similarity-to-suspect strategy fails to define limits to the number, type, and degree of featureal matching and falls prey to the logical extension that a good lineup is composed of the suspect's clones. Accordingly, the similarity-to-suspect strategy has no supportive logic in recognition memory theory and gives no credit to the importance of hit rates. The similarity-to-witness's-description-of-culprit criterion, on the other hand, specifies a finite and manageable set of feature requirements for distracters, articulates a role for heterogeneous features, meets all functional requirements for fairness to the suspect, has a supportive logic in recognition memory theory, preserves hit rates, and is not subject to the clone argument.Keywords
This publication has 10 references indexed in Scilit:
- The diagnosticity of a lineup should not be confused with the diagnostic value of nonlineup evidence.Journal of Applied Psychology, 1990
- Police Lineups as ExperimentsPersonality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1990
- Eyewitness identification: The importance of lineup models.Psychological Bulletin, 1986
- Verbal descriptions of faces from memory: Are they diagnostic of identification accuracy?Journal of Applied Psychology, 1985
- Relationship between accuracy of prior description and facial recognition.Journal of Applied Psychology, 1985
- Effective size and defendant bias in eyewitness identification lineups.Law and Human Behavior, 1981
- What price justice? Exploring the relationship of lineup fairness to identification accuracy.Law and Human Behavior, 1980
- Eyewitness accuracy and confidence: Can we infer anything about their relationship?Law and Human Behavior, 1980
- Warning: Even memory for faces may be contagious.Law and Human Behavior, 1980
- Guidelines for empirically assessing the fairness of a lineup.Law and Human Behavior, 1979