Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Criminal identification viewed from a different angle: Can a novel interactive lineup procedure improve accuracy?

87 views

Published on

Perpetrator pose reinstatement—viewing a criminal perpetrator's face in the same pose in which the witness saw him—should enhance face identification performance (e.g., Bruce, 1982). Witnesses likely encode culprits from different angles (left profile, front, right profile), but little research has examined whether pose reinstatement and viewing faces from multiple angles during a lineup improves identification accuracy. Two lineup procedures currently used in practice include photo lineups that show each face in frontal pose, and video lineups that show each face rotating left and right, 
revealing the whole face. We created a novel interactive lineup procedure, wherein witnesses were able to rotate the lineup faces into any pose, and addressed the following questions in our experiments:

1. Does encoding view influence discrimination accuracy? 


2. Do multiple views at test enhance discrimination accuracy? 


3. Do subjects reinstate pose and is pose reinstatement associated with accuracy?

Our results indicate that learning conditions are important. Participants who viewed the perpetrator from the front at encoding had better discrimination accuracy than subjects who viewed the perpetrator from the profile. Multiple views at test—in video and interactive lineups—can enhance discrimination accuracy. When interacting with the lineup faces, we found that participants spontaneously reinstated the pose in which they had viewed the perpetrator. Pose reinstatement was associated with accuracy. We are continuing this line of work to examine whether interactive lineups can improve accuracy in other circumstances, such as in cross race identifications (i.e., people are worse at recognising faces of a different ethnic/racial background than their own).

Published in: Science
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Criminal identification viewed from a different angle: Can a novel interactive lineup procedure improve accuracy?

  1. 1. Criminal identification viewed from a different angle: Can a novel interactive lineup procedure improve accuracy? Heather D. Flowe, Lisa Smith, Melissa F. Colloff, Harriet M. J. Smith, Nilda Karoğlu & John Maltby
  2. 2. Acknowledgments & Sponsors: -University of Leicester Department of Criminology -University of Leicester Research Enterprise Dept. -LT Commander R. McRight -Andrew Ramsay, Leicestershire Police -PROMAT -Acume Forensic Ltd.
  3. 3. Video false identifications No benefit Photo Accuracy ~ 50% (Clark et al., 2008) (e.g., Valentine et al., 2007) (e.g., Clark, et al., 2015)
  4. 4. Study-test pose improves accuracy (e.g., Bruce, 1982) Pose-sensitivity in cortical regions (e.g., Grill-Spector et al., 1999) Interactivity improves recognition (Liu et al., 2007)
  5. 5. Pose less influential (e.g., Logie et al., 1987) Lineup decision (Bailenson et al., 2008) Only interact at test (Lui et al., 2007)
  6. 6. Do interactive lineups enhance accuracy more than photo and video lineups? Do subjects reinstate study pose? Is pose-reinstatement associated with accuracy?
  7. 7. Lineup N = 2,907(TP / TA)(photo /video / interactive)
  8. 8. Do interactive lineups enhance accuracy more than photo and video lineups?
  9. 9. CorrectIdentificationRate False Identification Rate Procedure A Procedure B
  10. 10. .0 .2 .4 .6 .8 .0 .2 .4 CorrectIdentificationRate False Identification Rate
  11. 11. .0 .2 .4 .6 .8 .0 .2 .4 CorrectIdentificationRate False Identification Rate
  12. 12. .0 .2 .4 .6 .8 .0 .2 .4 CorrectIdentificationRate False Identification Rate
  13. 13. .0 .2 .4 .6 .8 .0 .2 .4 CorrectIdentificationRate False Identification Rate Interactive and video lineups:  Improve ability to discriminate between innocent and guilty suspects
  14. 14. .0 .2 .4 .6 .8 .0 .2 .4 CorrectIdentificationRate False Identification Rate
  15. 15. .0 .2 .4 .6 .8 .0 .2 .4 CorrectIdentificationRate False Identification Rate
  16. 16. .0 .2 .4 .6 .8 .0 .2 .4 CorrectIdentificationRate False Identification Rate
  17. 17. .0 .2 .4 .6 .8 .0 .2 .4 CorrectIdentificationRate False Identification Rate Interactive and video lineups:  Improve ability to discriminate between innocent and guilty suspects
  18. 18. .0 .2 .4 .6 .8 .0 .2 .4 CorrectIdentificationRate False Identification Rate
  19. 19. .0 .2 .4 .6 .8 .0 .2 .4 CorrectIdentificationRate False Identification Rate
  20. 20. .0 .2 .4 .6 .8 .0 .2 .4 CorrectIdentificationRate False Identification Rate
  21. 21. .0 .2 .4 .6 .8 .0 .2 .4 CorrectIdentificationRate False Identification Rate Interactive and video lineups:  Improve ability to discriminate between innocent and guilty suspects
  22. 22. Do subjects reinstate study pose? Is pose-reinstatement associated with accuracy?
  23. 23. Accurate Inaccurate .0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 Left Front Right Left Front Right ProportionofTime Perpetrator Video Pose Lineup Face Left Lineup Face Front Lineup Face Right
  24. 24. Accurate Inaccurate .0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 Left Front Right Left Front Right ProportionofTime Perpetrator Video Pose Lineup Face Left Lineup Face Front Lineup Face Right  Subjects reinstate study pose  Pose-reinstatement is associated with accuracy F(4, 956) = 3.59, p = .006, ηp 2 = .01, CI.95: .00-.03.
  25. 25. Accurate Inaccurate .0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 Left Front Right Left Front Right ProportionofTime Perpetrator Video Pose Lineup Face Left Lineup Face Front Lineup Face Right  Subjects reinstate study pose  Pose-reinstatement is associated with accuracy F(4, 956) = 3.59, p = .006, ηp 2 = .01, CI.95: .00-.03.
  26. 26. Accurate Inaccurate .0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 Left Front Right Left Front Right ProportionofTime Perpetrator Video Pose Lineup Face Left Lineup Face Front Lineup Face Right
  27. 27. Accurate Inaccurate .0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 Left Front Right Left Front Right ProportionofTime Perpetrator Video Pose Lineup Face Left Lineup Face Front Lineup Face Right  Subjects reinstate study pose  Pose-reinstatement is associated with accuracy F(4, 1918) = 2.57, p = .04, ηp 2 = .01, CI.95: .00-.01.
  28. 28. Accurate Inaccurate .0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 Left Front Right Left Front Right ProportionofTime Perpetrator Video Pose Lineup Face Left Lineup Face Front Lineup Face Right  Subjects reinstate study pose  Pose-reinstatement is associated with accuracy F(4, 1918) = 2.57, p = .04, ηp 2 = .01, CI.95: .00-.01.
  29. 29. Eyewitness accuracy depends on how the perpetrator was encoded Video & interactive lineups enhance accuracy Further research on interactive lineups Subjects reinstate study pose, and this is associated with accuracy
  30. 30. Heather D. Flowe, Lisa Smith, Melissa F. Colloff, Harriet M. J. Smith, Nilda Karoğlu & John Maltby Thank you for attending the session! Comments, questions? h.flowe@bham.ac.uk

×