Research indicates that elderly persons make approximately 25% to 50% more identifications after viewing a lineup than young adults. However most of their identifications are false.

This study examines age-related effects on lineup performance with these three goals in mind:

• To examine age differences in lineup identification by seniors under two conditions which specifically include 1) a personal encounter with the future lineup target (because they are often victims of crimes in which they see their perpetrator up close) and

• To determine whether age-related differences in self-efficacy, verbal recall, or both might effect differences in false-identification rates

• To examine whether context reinstatement (i.e. physical evidence from the event is shown) might be helpful to older participants in improving lineup performance

The findings are mixed concerning whether or not context reinstatement enhances seniors’ recall which may help avoid false identifications. One study by Gwyer and Clifford (1997) found that an interview that included context reinstatement reduced false choices when the target was not in the lineup. On the other hand, other studies have found little or no effect (Cutler et al., 1986, Fisher et al., 1992). The authors’ view is that the use of cues (i.e. physical evidence) may not be practical to use in actual investigations. So, they turn to the Cognitive Interview technique (CI: Fisher & Geiselman, 1992) in which the context reinstatement is not provided. Instead, the interviewer helps the participant to reinstate the context of the event they want to remember by relying on themselves.

To sum up, the authors want to examine the factors which they think may relate to age-deficits in lineup performance. The factors are:

1. Long delay following personal encounter
2. Individual memory Vs metamemory (i.e. when details are given to the witness)
3. Context reinstatement

Method

Participants

The senior-aged group included 49 adults between 62 and 79 years old (M=71). The young adult group consisted of 45 undergraduates between the ages of 18 and 30 (M=22.45). All of the participants took vision tests and vocabulary tests to determine visual acuity and educational equivalence.

Materials

The authors used 2 measures for self-efficacy.

Targets and Lineups

To help test the generality of the findings, participants within both groups (old/young) were exposed to one of two dissimilar interviewer targets which were labeled "Experimenter J" (man with the unusual hair style) and "Experimenter K" (woman with a conventional hair style). The lineups contained foils meeting the same general description as the target. There were two versions for each lineup – target absent (TA) or target present (TP). The lineups consisted of an array of 6 photographs with Experimenter J having black and white photos and Experimenter K having color photos. The photos were counterbalanced between participants.

Interview Procedures

The difference in the interview procedure was that either the CRI technique or the SI (standard interview) technique was used. CRI used context reinstatement and SI interviewers simply asked the participants to recall.

Neuropsychological Tests

Participants were tested using the standard form of BFRT (tests face perception) and the standard form of WCST (tests frontal functioning). It has been found that both of these test scores are correlated with lineup identification accuracy.

Design

This factorial design included two age groups and other between-groups variables which were:

1. experimenter–target = which of 2 individuals ran the first session and served as the lineup target
2. interview type = context reinstatement interview or structured interview
3. lineup type = TA or TP

Procedure

1^st Session:

• Participants in groups of 2 or 3
• Were introduced to the experimenter and future target
• Lasted for 20 minutes
• Laboratory was decorated with posters, etc. to help recall
• Filled out questionnaires first – demographic and health info.
• Next, watched 3 brief videos as affect-induction stimuli – 1^st and 3^rd were soothing, the 2^nd was designed to increase arousal and negative affect
• Reported their mood and level of arousal before and after videos
• Then given a memory self-efficacy questionnaire – after completed, mail to laboratory
• After questionnaires were received, the 2^nd session would be one month later

• Met a different experimenter for the 2^nd session about 1 month later
• Were given vision vocabulary, and WCST tests
• After break – interviewed about the 1^st session with either CRI or SI (half/half)
• Following interview, asked to identify experimenter in a lineup if they could
• Were given the option not to make a choice
• Last, completed the BFRT

• Verbal Recall – Younger participants showed higher recall scores than seniors did.

• Lineup Performance – "J" responses were more accurate than "K" responses. The younger group outperformed the seniors. Comparing the TA and TP lineups, the experimenter effect only occurred when the experimenter was in the lineup. Experimenter J was easier to recognize than Exp. K (better verbal recall for Exp. J).
• False Identification Rates – Found more false identifications with senior group, in the CRI group, and in the TA group.
• Confidence – Young group was more confident in their lineup decisions. False identifications were made with equivalent confidence by both seniors and young groups. Confidence predicted accuracy in young adults, while in senior group they were not related.
• Decision Latency – (short latency correlates with accuracy) For young adults, short latency correlated with accuracy (not a good predictor for seniors).
• Predictor Variables – All variables significantly correlated with age raising the possibility that they might help account for age differences in lineup performance.
• Neuropsychological Measures and Accuracy – In the TA condition, none of the correlations were significant. In the TP condition, young adults showed a significant correlation of accuracy with BFRT (WCST correlated negatively with accuracy).
• Verbal Recall, Self-Efficacy, and Accuracy – In the TP condition, both memory self-efficacy and verbal recall were positively related with accuracy in the young group. In the senior group, verbal recall reliably predicted TP accuracy but memory self-efficacy did not. In the TA condition, same thing as in the TP condition for young adults. In the TP condition for seniors, both measures showed a negative correlation with accuracy.

Context reinstatement did not enhance lineup performance by using the CI techniques. Important findings included the positive relationship of memory self-efficacy and verbal recall to false identifications by seniors.