PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 11419380

A preidentification questioning effect: serendipitously increasing correct rejections.

J E Dysart·R C Lindsay
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

A study designed to test the effects of delay between crime and lineup on identification accuracy produced an unusually high rate of correct rejection from target-absent, simultaneous lineups (J. E. Dysart, 1999). Examining the procedures indicated that one question included in a preidentification questionnaire differed from those used previously. The question asked witnesses if they believed they would be able to correctly reject a target-absent lineup. An experiment (N = 138) was conducted to explore the impact of preidentification questions, including this new question, on witness accuracy. Results revealed that asking witnesses these questions, prior to viewing the lineup, significantly increased correct rejections of target-absent simultaneous lineups.

Explore related subjects

CrimeFemaleHumansJudgmentLinear ModelsMaleMental RecallOntarioRecognition, PsychologyVideotape RecordingClinical TrialControlled Clinical TrialJournal ArticleResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

J E Dysart, R C Lindsay. 2001. A preidentification questioning effect: serendipitously increasing correct rejections.. https://doi.org/10.1023/a%3A1005693330921

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

Eyewitness lineups: is the appearance-change instruction a good idea?

The Department of Justice's Guide for lineups recommends warning eyewitnesses that the culprit's appearance might have changed since the time of the crime. This appearance-change instruction (ACI) has never been empirically tested. A video crime with four culprits was viewed by 289 participants who then attempted to identify the culprits from four 6-person arrays that either included or did not include the culprit. Participants either received the ACI or not and all were warned that the culprit might or might not be in the arrays. The culprits varied in how much their appearance changed from the video to their lineup arrays, but the ACI did not improve identification decisions for any of the lineups. Collapsed over the four culprits, the ACI increased false alarms and filler identifications but did not increase culprit identifications. The ACI reduced confidence and increased response latency. Two processes that could account for these results are discussed, namely a decision criterion shift and a general increase in ecphoric similarity.

Crime↗