NCJ Number
86697
Journal
Journal of Applied Psychology Volume: 66 Issue: 4 Dated: (August 1981) Pages: 482-489
Date Published
1981
Length
8 pages
Annotation
Eyewitness identification of innocent suspects is an important source of injustice in the criminal justice system. Eyewitnesses of a staged vandalism received varying lineup instructions under conditions in which the offender was present or absent.
Abstract
Biased instructions implied that witnesses were to choose someone, whereas unbiased instructions provided a 'no choice' option. A total of 100 witnesses (74 women, 26 men) viewed corporeal lineups on 1 of 3 evenings following the vandalism. A high rate of choosing occurred under biased instructions, and the lowest rate occurred under unbiased instructions with the vandal absent. With the vandal present under biased instructions all errors were false identifications, whereas under unbiased instructions all errors were false rejections of the lineup. Confidence ratings were obtained following the witnesses' identification decision. Witnesses making a choice had high confidence scores, whereas those rejecting the lineup had low confidence scores. Confidence and accuracy were not related. Unbiased instructions reduced choosing and false identifications without decreasing correct identifications. Both identifications and nonidentifications had greater 'diagnosticity' under unbiased than under biased instructions. Study data, 2 notes, and 25 references are included. (Author abstract modified)