{"id":265,"date":"2013-04-30T23:55:35","date_gmt":"2013-05-01T03:55:35","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/web.colby.edu\/cogblog\/?p=265"},"modified":"2013-12-18T12:00:35","modified_gmt":"2013-12-18T17:00:35","slug":"innocent-criminal-the-science-behind-inaccurate-eye-witness-testimony","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/cogblog\/2013\/04\/30\/innocent-criminal-the-science-behind-inaccurate-eye-witness-testimony\/","title":{"rendered":"Innocent Criminal: The Science behind Inaccurate Eye-witness Testimony."},"content":{"rendered":"

Innocent Criminal: The Science behind Inaccurate Eye-witness Testimony<\/p>\n

Ever noticed CSI shows? Every time a crime is committed, the potential perpetrator is told to stand behind a glass frame. Along with him or her are more people. What\u2019s intriguing about all of this is that every single \u201cfalse criminal\u201d looks very similar to the original criminal. Whether it be the tattoos, the similar age, or maybe even the clothing, there is a sense of similarity across the spectrum. That similarity is done for a reason. Suspects who have distinctive features like a birthmark or scar were the easiest to identify in a line-up. To prevent any bias, all those in the lineup have similar features and physical stature to the perpetrator. While in theory this seems legitimate, in reality there are flaws. Previous research has shown that older adults show a decline in visual discrimination over time. Recollection of facts and events gets more difficult as people age, so older adults struggle to connect faces to distinctive features. This supports the idea that older adults with associative deficit hypothesis have a harder time identifying distinct features of a face when they are presented with other faces that look familiar.<\/p>\n

Research has shown that eyewitness testimony is not a very accurate way to identify suspects who may have committed a crime; yet, eyewitness testimony is one of the most critical pieces of evidence that investigators use to build a case. New research is being done to figure out ways that law enforcement can help individuals who may have witnessed a crime, properly identify the perpetrator. Distinctive features such as moles or tattoos are things that help differentiate people. Witnesses rely heavily on these distinctive features when they are asked to identify a suspect.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

In their study, \u201cReplicating distinctive facial features in lineups: identification performance in young versus older adults,\u201d Badham, Wade, Watts, Woods, and Maylor examine the accuracy of eyewitness testimony in younger and older adults. Sixty young adults and ninety older adults volunteered to participate in their study. They had four different experiment conditions. For their manipulations they used computer technology to digitally remove or replicate any distinct features (moustache, mole, tattoo, birthmark).<\/p>\n

They were given the option of answering none if they did not think the target was present. In two of the conditions, the stimuli contained the target face, and in the other two conditions the target was absent. (Imagine being given a multiple-choice questionnaire and the answer not being presented, and you do not have the option of answering none of the above. hat is what the target absent would be like if you couldn’t answer ‘none of the above!) The participants were presented with a picture of a target and asked to identify that target in mix of six stimuli. In half of the experiments, the distinctive feature (bruise, mole, moustache, piercing, scar and tattoo) was applied to all of the stimuli and in the other half the distinctive feature was removed from the stimuli. The participants assumed that the target would be present in all the line-up since they were being asked to identify who they thought was the target in the mix of faces.<\/p>\n

\"criminals\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Fig. 1 Examples of distinctive features (top) digitally added to faces (bottom). From left to right: bruise, mole, mustache, piercing, scar, tattoo.<\/strong><\/p>\n

In the target present condition, where the distinctive feature was applied to all the stimuli, younger adults were more accurate at identifying the target then the older adults. Older adults were also more likely to identify a non-target in the target present condition then were the younger adults. When the distinctive feature was removed from the stimuli, the older adults had a more difficult time identifying the target then were the younger adults. In the target absent condition, younger adults were more likely to identify when the target was not present in the line-up then were the older adults. Younger adults were more likely to respond none in the target absent condition when the distinctive feature was either added to or removed from the stimuli.<\/p>\n

The results indicated that younger participants were more accurate at identifying a target then were the older participants. Age also had an effect when it came to the replication and the removal task.\u00a0 For the replication task, younger adults were more accurate at identifying a target then were the older adults. This indicates that younger adults were able to differentiate between the non-targets and the targets with more ease than the older adults and for the majority of the time they were accurate. Older adults performed about the same on both the replication and the removal task. An explanation for why older adults perform worse on removal tasks can be because they rely more heavily on familiarity. This makes it more difficult for them differentiate between stimuli that may look similar.<\/p>\n

So if there are all these flaws in eyewitness testimony, why is it still being used in convicting suspects? Research has shown that it is very easy for memory to be distorted, especially in older adults. Since this form of evidence is still critical in convicting suspects, law enforcement needs to make changes so that older adults make the least amount of mistakes when they identify perpetrators. The possibility that an innocent person could be sent to prison for a crime that they did not commit is frightening. Improvements need to be made so that there are many forms of evidence needed to convict someone.\u00a0 They also need to make it clear that there is a possibility that when they get people in a line-up that the target described might not be in the line-up. As citizens, we depend strongly on our security systems, and we need to make sure that the individuals who end up paying for the crime, are actually the ones who committed the crime.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Reference<\/p>\n

Badham, Stephen, Wade, Kimberley, Watts, Hannah, Woods, Natalie, & Maylor, Elizabeth.\u00a0 (2013). Replicating distinctive facial features in lineups: identification performance in young versus older adults. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review,<\/i> 20 (289), 289-295.<\/p>\n

Doi: 10. 3758\/s13423-012-0339-2<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Innocent Criminal: The Science behind Inaccurate Eye-witness Testimony Ever noticed CSI shows? Every time a crime is committed, the potential perpetrator is told to stand behind a glass frame. Along with him or her are more people. What\u2019s intriguing about all of this is that every single \u201cfalse criminal\u201d looks very similar to the original […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5259,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"ngg_post_thumbnail":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[40864,80215],"tags":[130349,1033],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/cogblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/265"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/cogblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/cogblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/cogblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5259"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/cogblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=265"}],"version-history":[{"count":10,"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/cogblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/265\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":935,"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/cogblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/265\/revisions\/935"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/cogblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=265"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/cogblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=265"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/cogblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=265"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}