Molly B. Moreland’s research while affiliated with Hood College and other places

A prominent and long‐standing theory of eyewitness identification decision making distinguishes between absolute judgments, based on the lineup members' match to the witness's memory of the perpetrator, versus relative judgments, based on match values relative to other lineup members. This distinction was implemented in a computational model and simulations showed that the model predicts an accuracy advantage for absolute judgments over relative judgments under some conditions. The present experiment tested this prediction by evaluating the accuracy of witnesses instructed to use relative or absolute rules. Contrary to predictions, the overall analysis did not show an absolute advantage. Additional exploratory analyses showed a relative advantage when the suspect was surrounded by high‐similarity foils. These results are consistent with a model that assumes that side‐by‐side comparisons of lineup members increase diagnostic accuracy by allowing witnesses to give greater weight to more diagnostic features and less weight to less diagnostic features.

Eyewitness identification research and reform are being reconsidered in light of research suggesting that reforms that were once thought to increase identification accuracy may have little effect on accuracy or may actually decrease accuracy. This article addresses three questions: How should eyewitness identification procedures be evaluated? How can the research-policy collaboration prevent policy revisions and reversals? And how can the research-policy collaboration prepare for revisions and reversals?

This chapter examines a critical aspect of the prosecution's case (US v. Wade, 1967), the composition and construction of the lineup. How should the lineup members be selected? How many lineup members should there be? Should the lineup be presented live, on video, or through static photographs? How does the composition of the lineup interact with other lineup variables? These are the central questions addressed in the chapter. The chapter is divided into three main sections. The first section describes the evolution of law and guidelines regulating eyewitness identification procedures generally, and lineup composition specifically, focusing primarily on the US and the UK. The second section describes conceptual development and research related to the evaluation of identification lineups, first in terms of fairness and bias and then in terms of accuracy and the probative value of identification evidence. The third section discusses the implications of that research.

Scientists in many disciplines have begun to raise questions about the evolution of research findings over time (Ioannidis in Epidemiology, 19, 640-648, 2008; Jennions & Møller in Proceedings of the Royal Society, Biological Sciences, 269, 43-48, 2002; Mullen, Muellerleile, & Bryan in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1450-1462, 2001; Schooler in Nature, 470, 437, 2011), since many phenomena exhibit decline effects-reductions in the magnitudes of effect sizes as empirical evidence accumulates. The present article examines empirical and theoretical evolution in eyewitness identification research. For decades, the field has held that there are identification procedures that, if implemented by law enforcement, would increase eyewitness accuracy, either by reducing false identifications, with little or no change in correct identifications, or by increasing correct identifications, with little or no change in false identifications. Despite the durability of this no-cost view, it is unambiguously contradicted by data (Clark in Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 238-259, 2012a; Clark & Godfrey in Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 22-42, 2009; Clark, Moreland, & Rush, 2013; Palmer & Brewer in Law and Human Behavior, 36, 247-255, 2012), raising questions as to how the no-cost view became well-accepted and endured for so long. Our analyses suggest that (1) seminal studies produced, or were interpreted as having produced, the no-cost pattern of results; (2) a compelling theory was developed that appeared to account for the no-cost pattern; (3) empirical results changed over the years, and subsequent studies did not reliably replicate the no-cost pattern; and (4) the no-cost view survived despite the accumulation of contradictory empirical evidence. Theories of memory that were ruled out by early data now appear to be supported by data, and the theory developed to account for early data now appears to be incorrect.

Lineup administrators were trained to respond to witnesses in such a way as to redirect them from making non-identifications or foil identification responses toward making identifications of the suspect. Compared to a no-influence control condition, suspect identification rates in the influence condition increased substantially and proportionally for guilty and innocent suspects. Administrators steered witnesses more specifically toward the suspect when the suspect was guilty than when the suspect was innocent. Post-identification confidence for correct identifications of the guilty suspect did not differ significantly across the influence and no-influence groups. However, post-identification confidence for false identifications of the innocent suspect was significantly lower for the influence group than for the no-influence group because witnesses who were influenced to make false identifications tended to be those who were less confident prior to the lineup, and also because those witnesses became less confident from pre- to post-identification.

The U.S. Supreme Court wrote in 1967, 'The vagaries of eyewitness identification are well-known; the annals of criminal law are rife with instances of mistaken identification.' (U.S. v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218). Forty-five years later these 'vagaries' are perhaps even more well-known. Archival analyses have led to a consensus that mistaken eyewitness identification is the primary cause of wrongful convictions in the U.S. (Garrett, 2011; Gross, Jacoby, Matheson, Montgomery, & Patil, 2005; Gross & Shaffer, 2012). Experimental research on eyewitness identification has led to the development of new procedures designed to increase the accuracy of eyewitness identification evidence and reduce the risk of false identification errors that can send innocent people to prison. Many state governments and local law enforcement jurisdictions have already implemented the new procedures, and others are contemplating their adoption. As the reform movement has gained momentum, however, the empirical foundation for the recommended procedures has eroded. The procedural changes produce a trade-off between false identifications avoided and correct identifications lost. In some cases the reforms may not reduce eyewitness errors, but only redistribute them, such that the changes in accuracy are very small or non-existent.