Garrioch, L.
& Brimacombe, C.A.E. (2001). Lineup administrators' expectations: Their
impact on eyewitness confidence. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 299-315.
This article has to do with confidence malleability
in eyewitness identification. That is, if an eyewitness receives
some sort of positive feedback (e.g. a nod, hearing that a co-witness IDed
the same person, etc.) their retrospective confidence in their identification
can be increased.
The question in this article is whether prior
knowledge on the part of the lineup administrator as to who the suspect
is, can result in the administrator inadvertently providing the witness
with feedback that increases their confidence.
Experiment 1
Used their subject witness/subject interviewer paradigm.
Participants were randomly assigned to play role of witness or interviewer.
Interviewers were randomly assigned to one of three conditions:
-
No information given
-
Interviewers told thief was lineup member 5, who
pilot testing had shown was the most common choice from this lineup
-
Interviewers told thief was lineup member 3, who
pilot testing had shown was the second most common choice from this lineup
-
Interviewers told thief was lineup member 6, who
didn't look anything like they guy
These manipulations were meant to influence the interviewers
beliefs about how reasonable the witness's choice was. If the interviewer
thought #3 was the thief, then they will believe the witness is wrong in
picking #5, but that their choice was at least in the ballpark. If
the interviewer thought #6 was the thief, then they will believe that a
witness picking #5 isn't even close!
Subject interviewer shows subject witness a six
person target absent lineup. Witness makes choice and then confidence
is obtained.
Results
-
Witnesses whose interviewers believed they picked
the right guy were more confident than witnesses whose interviewers were
in the control condition.
-
Witnesses whose interviewers believed they picked
the wrong guy and that this choice was implausible were less confident
than control.
-
Witneses whose interviewers believed they picked
the wrong guy but that this choice was plausible did not differ from control.
Experiment 2
Showed film of witnesses answering interview questions.
Contrary to their expectations, no difference between the conditions.
Discussion
-
This article advances our understanding of the role
interviewer expectations can play on eyewitness reports.
-
In particular, when interviewers believed that participants
had picked the correct person, they provided cues that tended to increase
witness confidence.
-
When interviewers believed that the participants
made a ludicrous choice, they provided cues that significantly decreased
witness confidence
-
While confidence judgments were influenced, the authors
were unable to show that mock jurors were sensitive to these changes in
confidence
-
Results demonstrate that it would be beneficial if
police conducted blind lineups