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.

Interactive lineups can improve eyewitness performance

77 views

Published on

Presented at SARMAC June, 2019

Published in: Science
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Interactive lineups can improve eyewitness performance

  1. 1. Interactive lineups can improve eyewitness performance Melissa F. Colloff, Harriet M.J. Smith, Travis Seale-Carlisle, Christian A. Meissner, Babita Pande, Pratibha Kujur, Noorshama Parveen, Priyanka Chandel, Margaret Messiah Singh, Sraddha Pradhan, Arti Parganiha & Heather D. Flowe https://osf.io/2x5tg/ https://osf.io/b8tvw/
  2. 2. Pose reinstatement (Bruce, 1982; Flowe et al., in prep) Interactive > passive (Lui et al., 2007) Motion cues (Buratto et al., 2009) Diagnostic feature detection (Wixted & Mickes, 2014)
  3. 3. Other-race faces are 1.4xmore likely to misidentified than same-race faces (Meissner & Brigham, 2001) 50% of identifications made by witnesses are other-race Qualitative differences at encoding (e.g., Behrman & Davey, 2001) Improve recognition at test? (Anzure et al., 2014)
  4. 4. Do interactive lineups enhance accuracy more than static photo lineups? Do interactive lineups attenuate the own race bias?
  5. 5. 2 (Perpetrator race: Caucasian, South Asian) x 2 (Subject race: Caucasian, South Asian) x 2 (Target: present, absent) x 2 (Lineup type: Interactive, Static)
  6. 6. 2 (Perpetrator race: Caucasian, South Asian) x 2 (Subject race: Caucasian, South Asian) x 2 (Target: present, absent) x 2 (Lineup type: Interactive, Static) 2 min filler Static Lineup …etc. N = 220 (Caucasian n = 110, South Asian n = 110) 2 min filler Static Lineup …etc. 2 min filler Interactive Lineup 2 min filler Interactive Lineup
  7. 7. .0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 .00 .05 .10 CorrectIdentificationRate False Identification Rate
  8. 8. .0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 .00 .05 .10 CorrectIdentificationRate False Identification Rate Static
  9. 9. .0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 .00 .05 .10 CorrectIdentificationRate False Identification Rate Static Interactive
  10. 10. .0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 .00 .05 .10 CorrectIdentificationRate False Identification Rate Static Interactive .0 .1 .2 Static Interactive pAUC
  11. 11. .0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 .00 .05 .10 CorrectIdentificationRate False Identification Rate Static Interactive .0 .1 .2 Static Interactive pAUC *
  12. 12. .0 .1 .2 Static Interactive pAUC * Interactive lineups improve ability to discriminate between innocent and guilty suspects (and theoretical discriminability) For any possible false ID rate, interactive lineups increased the correct ID rate by 18%
  13. 13. .0 .1 .2 Static Interactive pAUC Own Race Other Race ** ** Ability to discriminate between innocent and guilty suspects is better for own race identifications
  14. 14. Ability to discriminate between innocent and guilty suspects is better for own race identifications Interactive lineups do not reduce the own race bias, z = 0.01, p = .49 .0 .1 .2 Static Interactive pAUC Own Race Other Race ** **
  15. 15. Does the presentation format of interactive lineups influence accuracy? Do simultaneous-joint-movement interactive lineups attenuate the own race bias?
  16. 16. 2 (Perpetrator race: Caucasian, South Asian) x 2 (Subject race: Caucasian, South Asian) x 2 (Target: present, absent) x 3 (Lineup type: Sequential, Sim-Independent, Sim-Joint) …etc.
  17. 17. 2 (Perpetrator race: Caucasian, South Asian) x 2 (Subject race: Caucasian, South Asian) x 2 (Target: present, absent) x 3 (Lineup type: Sequential, Sim-Independent, Sim-Joint) N = 8,507 (Caucasian n = 4,293, South Asian n = 4,214) 2 min filler Interactive Sequential Lineup 2 min filler Interactive Simultaneous Independent Lineup 2 min filler Interactive Simultaneous Joint Lineup
  18. 18. .0 .1 .2 .3 Sequential Simultaneous Independent Simultaneous Joint pAUC
  19. 19. Simultaneous interactive lineups improve ability to discriminate between innocent and guilty suspects (and theoretical discriminability) For any possible false ID rate, simultaneous joint lineups increased the correct ID rate by .0 .1 .2 .3 Sequential Simultaneous Independent Simultaneous Joint pAUC * ** 23%
  20. 20. .0 .1 .2 .3 Sequential Simultaneous Independent Simultaneous Joint pAUC Own Race Other Race Ability to discriminate between innocent and guilty suspects is better for own race identifications Simultaneous interactive lineups do not reduce the own race bias, all ps < .16 *** *** ***
  21. 21. Interactive lineups can enhance discrimination accuracy Interactive lineups are compatible with current legal frameworks Interactive lineups boost accuracy of other-race and own-race identifications Thank you to our research assistants: Danielle Hett, Katie Summers, Claire Thirkettle, Mahmoud Elsherif, Anastasia Tsioukanara, Faryad Yusuf
  22. 22. .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1.0 0-60 70-80 90-100 ProportionCorrect Confidence Level Own- and Other-race Static Interactive .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1.0 0-60 70-80 90-100 ProportionCorrect Confidence Level Static Own Race Other Race .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1.0 0-60 70-80 90-100 ProportionCorrect Confidence Level Interactive Own Race Other Race
  23. 23. .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1.0 0-60 70-80 90-100 ProportionCorrect Confidence Level Own- and Other-race Sequential Simultaneous Independent Simultaneous Joint
  24. 24. .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1.0 0-60 70-80 90-100 ProportionCorrect Confidence Level Sequential Own Race Other Race .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1.0 0-60 70-80 90-100 ProportionCorrect Confidence Level Simultaneous Independent Own Race Other Race .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1.0 0-60 70-80 90-100 ProportionCorrect Confidence Level Simultaneous Joint Own Race Other Race
  25. 25. Trial 1 Trial 8 .0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 0-60 70-80 90-100 ProportionCorrect Confidence Level Own Race Other Race .0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 0-60 70-80 90-100 ProportionCorrect Confidence Level Own Race Other Race
  26. 26. .0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 .00 .05 .10 CorrectIdentificationRate False Identification Rate Static Own Race Static Other Race Interactive Own Race Interactive Other Race
  27. 27. .0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 .00 .05 .10 .15 CorrectIdentificationRate False Identification Rate Sequential Simultaneous Independent Simultaneous Joint .0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 .00 .05 .10 .15 CorrectIdentificationRate False Identification Rate Sequential Own Race Sequential Other Race Simultaneous Independent Own Race Simultaneous Independent Other Race Simultaneous Joint Own Race
  28. 28. Qualitative differences at encoding Improve recognition at test? .0 .1 .2 Static Interactive Accuracy Own Race Other Race

×