Choosing A Suspect 4 That’s Him!

Choosing A Suspect 4 That’s Him! Choosing a Suspect From A Lineup

The assignment involves analyzing two scientific studies that investigate eyewitness confidence in lineup identifications. It requires identifying hypotheses, independent variables, dependent variables, and results for each study. Additionally, the task includes reviewing references for APA formatting accuracy, drafting an APA-compliant abstract that summarizes the studies, and evaluating the overall writing quality and adherence to APA style guidelines.

Paper For Above instruction

Eyewitness testimony plays a pivotal role in the justice system, yet its reliability can be compromised by variables such as lineup instructions and the number of lineup members. The two studies examined here explore how these factors influence eyewitness decisions and confidence levels, providing insight into cognitive biases and procedural variables affecting eyewitness identification accuracy.

Study One: Hypotheses, Variables, and Findings

The first study hypothesized that participants would be more likely to select a suspect from the lineup when explicitly told the suspect was present, and that their confidence in the choice would be higher under this condition. The null hypothesis would predict no difference in suspect choice or confidence across different instruction conditions. The independent variable was lineup instruction, with three levels: (1) participants informed the suspect was present, (2) participants told the suspect "might" be present, and (3) no instructions were provided. The dependent variables examined were: (1) recall of instructions (manipulation check), (2) whether a suspect was chosen, and (3) self-reported confidence in the decision.

The results supported the hypotheses: participants told the suspect was present were significantly more likely to choose a suspect and exhibited greater confidence compared to other instruction conditions. This finding underscores the influence of suggestive instructions on eyewitness judgements, highlighting the necessity for careful procedure to prevent biases in forensic settings.

Study Two: Hypotheses, Variables, and Findings

The second study extended these findings by hypothesizing that both suspect selection and confidence would be higher when participants were instructed that the suspect "was present," compared to the "might" be present condition, especially when the lineup had more members. It additionally predicted that increasing the lineup size from four to eight would amplify these effects, with the combination of "target present" instructions and eight lineup members producing the highest suspect choice and confidence levels. The independent variables were: (1) lineup instructions ("target present" vs. "might be present") and (2) lineup size (four vs. eight members). The same dependent variables as in study one were analyzed.

The findings confirmed that participants in the "target present" instruction condition were more likely to choose a suspect and report higher confidence, but only when the lineup consisted of eight members. When lineup sizes were four, the differences between instruction conditions diminished, suggesting that larger lineups combined with explicit instructions influence eyewitness decisions more strongly. These results highlight how procedural variables can interact to skew eyewitness testimony.

Review of References and APA Correction

Among the references reviewed, two entries were identified as not adhering to APA format. The corrected references are as follows:

  • Brigham, J., Ready, D., & Spier, S. (1990). Standards for evaluating the fairness of photographic lineups. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 11. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973539008403438
  • Pezdek, K., Blandon-Gitlin, I., & Moore, C. (2003). Children's face recognition memory: More evidence for the cross-race effect. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.677

Abstract

Abstract

This research investigates the influence of lineup instructions and size on eyewitness suspect identification and confidence. Study one involved 551 undergraduate participants who viewed a target suspect and then completed lineup tasks under different instruction conditions (“target present,” “might be present,” or no instructions). Results indicated that explicit instructions about suspect presence increased both suspect selection rates and confidence levels. Study two included 337 participants, examining the effects of lineup size (four vs. eight) combined with instruction type. Findings revealed that larger lineups paired with explicit instructions enhanced suspect choice and confidence, whereas smaller lineups showed no significant differences. The studies underscore the importance of procedural factors in eyewitness decision-making, with implications for legal practice to improve identification accuracy and reduce wrongful convictions. Recommendations include standardizing lineup procedures to minimize bias. These findings contribute to understanding cognitive processes underlying eyewitness testimony and support reforms aimed at enhancing the reliability of suspect identification.

Keywords: eyewitness confidence, lineup instructions, lineup size, forensic psychology, investigative procedures

References

  • Brigham, J., Ready, D., & Spier, S. (1990). Standards for evaluating the fairness of photographic lineups. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 11. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973539008403438
  • Pezdek, K., Blandon-Gitlin, I., & Moore, C. (2003). Children's face recognition memory: More evidence for the cross-race effect. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.677
  • Deffenbacher, K. A., & Bornstein, B. H. (1984). Eyewitness confidence: The effects of confirmatory feedback. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(1), 157–162. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.69.1.157
  • Wells, G. L., & Bradfield, A. L. (1998). "Good, you identified the suspect": Feedback effects on eyewitness identification. Psychological Science, 9(3), 208–211. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00034
  • Steblay, N. M., Culhane, S. E., & Unix, O. (1999). . The eyewitness evidence: What do laboratory studies tell us? Law and Human Behavior, 23(4), 385–397. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022329527717
  • Cutler, B. L., & Penrod, S. D. (1988). Improving the reliability of eyewitness identifications: The use of sequential lineups. Law and Human Behavior, 12(2), 137–150. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01044866
  • Steblay, N. M., & Loftus, E. F. (1994). The weapon focus effect: Dynamics of eyewitness memory in a violent crime. Law and Human Behavior, 18(2), 151–162. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01499300
  • Wells, G. L., & Olson, G. M. (2003). Repeat after me: The influence of feedback on eyewitness confidence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 654–665. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.654
  • Malpass, R. S., & Devine, D. J. (1981). Eyewitness identification: The eyewitness in court. Law and Human Behavior, 5(4), 371–390. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01046509
  • Wixted, J. T., & Wells, G. L. (2017). The psychology of eyewitness identification. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 17(1), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100616689128

Related Assignments