Research Article
A comparison of video and static photo lineups with child and adolescent witnesses
Catriona Havard,
Amina Memon,
Brian Clifford,
Fiona Gabbert,
Corresponding Author
Catriona Havard
School of Psychology, University of Aberdeen, UK
School of Psychology, University of Aberdeen, Kings College, Old Aberdeen, AB24 2UB, UK.Search for more papers by this authorAmina Memon
Department of Psychology, Royal Holloway, University of London, UK
Search for more papers by this authorBrian Clifford
School of Psychology, University of Aberdeen, UK
Search for more papers by this authorFiona Gabbert
Division of Psychology, University of Abertay, UK
Search for more papers by this authorCatriona Havard,
Amina Memon,
Brian Clifford,
Fiona Gabbert,
Corresponding Author
Catriona Havard
School of Psychology, University of Aberdeen, UK
School of Psychology, University of Aberdeen, Kings College, Old Aberdeen, AB24 2UB, UK.Search for more papers by this authorAmina Memon
Department of Psychology, Royal Holloway, University of London, UK
Search for more papers by this authorBrian Clifford
School of Psychology, University of Aberdeen, UK
Search for more papers by this authorFiona Gabbert
Division of Psychology, University of Abertay, UK
Search for more papers by this authorAbstract
In the UK video parades are the preferred method of identification employed in criminal cases. This policy implementation has been employed with little or no evidence concerning its validity. The reported research examines the effect of new video technology on children's identification evidence. The study compared 7–9 and 13–15-year olds' ability to make identifications from either video or static photo lineups. Two hundred and fifteen participants witnessed a live event and then after a delay of 2–3 days viewed a target present (TP), or target absent (TA) video or photo lineup. For video and photo TP lineups, correct responses did not differ as a function of age. Video lineups produced lower rates of false identifications for the TA lineups, but only for adolescent witnesses. It is concluded that there is nothing contra-indicated in the use of video identification procedures with children, and possibly certain benefits can accrue from its use. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
REFERENCES
- Beal, C. R., Schmitt, K. L., & Dekle, D. J. (1995). Eyewitness identification of children. Effects of absolute judgements, nonverbal response options, and event encoding. Law and Human Behavior, 19, 197–216.
- Beresford, J., & Blades, M. (2006). Children's identification of faces from lineups: The effects of lineup presentation and instructions on accuracy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1102–1113.
- Bonner, L., Burton, A. M., & Bruce, V. (2003). Getting to know you: How we learn new faces. Visual Cognition, 10, 527–536.
-
Brewer, N., &
Day, K.
(2005).
The confidence-accuracy and decision latency-accuracy relationships in children's eyewitness identification.
Psychiatry, Psychology and Law,
12,
119–128.
10.1375/pplt.2005.12.1.119 Google Scholar
- Bruce, V., Burton, A. M., & Hancock, P. J. H. (2007). Remembering faces. In R. C. L. Read, D. F. Ross, & M. Toglia (Eds.), Handbook of eyewitness psychology: Memory for people (Vol. 2, pp. 87–100). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.
- Carey, S., & Diamond, R. (1977). From piecemeal to configural representation of faces. Science, 195, 312–314.
- Christie, F., & Bruce, V. (1998). The role of movement in face recognition of unfamiliar faces. Memory and Cognition, 26, 780–790.
- Chung, M. S., & Thomson, D. M. (1995). Development of face recognition. British Journal of Psychology, 86, 55–87.
- Clede, B. (1991). Mugging made easy. Law and Order, 39, 13.
- Crookes, K., & McKone, E. (2009). Early maturity of face recognition: No childhood development of holistic processing, novel face encoding, or face space. Cognition, 111, 219–247.
- Cutler, B. L., & Fisher, R. P. (1990). Live lineups, videotaped lineups and photoarrays. Forensic Reports, 3, 439–448.
- Darling, S., Valentine, T., & Memon, A. (2008). Selection of lineup foils in operational contexts. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 159–169.
- Dekle, D. J., Beal, C. R., Elliot, R., & Huneycutt, D. (1996). Children as witnesses: A comparison of lineup versus showup identification methods. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, 1–12.
- Ellis, H. D., & Flin, R. H. (1990). Encoding and storage effects in 7-year-olds' and 10-year-olds' memory of faces. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 8, 77–92.
- Flin, R. H. (1980). Age effects in children's memory for unfamiliar faces. Developmental Psychology, 16, 373–374.
- Goodman, G. S., & Reed, R. S. (1986). Age differences in eyewitness testimony. Law and Human Behavior, 10, 317–332.
- Havard, C., Memon, A., Chaudhry, F., Clifford, B., & Gabbert, F. (2008). The behaviour of witnesses viewing VIPER Parades: Evidence from a Scottish survey. Poster presented at the 2nd Scottish Institute of policing Research (SIPR) Annual Conference, Edinburgh, 2 September 2008.
- Hill, H., Schyns, P. G., & Akamatsu, S. (1997). Information and viewpoint dependence in face recognition. Cognition, 62, 201–222.
- Knight, B., & Johnston, A. (1997). The role of movement in face recognition. Visual Cognition, 4, 265–273.
- Lander, K., & Bruce, V. (2003). The role of motion in learning new faces. Visual Cognition, 10, 640–647.
- Lander, K., Bruce, V., & Hill, H. (2001). Evaluating the effectiveness of pixilation and blurring on masking the identity of familiar faces. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 15, 101–116.
- Lander, K., Christie, F., & Bruce, V. (1999). The role of movement in the recognition of famous faces. Memory & Cognition, 27, 974–985.
- Lander, K., & Chung, L. (2005). Why are moving faces easier to recognise? Visual Cognition, 12, 429–442.
- Lindsay, R. C. L., Pozzulo, J. D., Craig, W., Lee, K., & Corber, S. (1997). Simultaneous lineups, sequential lineups & showups: Eyewitness identification decisions of adults and children. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 391–404.
- Lord Advocates' guidelines—The conduct of visual identification procedures. (2007). Retrieved from the web on 05.October.07. http://www.copfs.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/13547/0000269.pdf
- Malpass, R. S., Tredoux, C. G., Schreiber Compo, N., McQuiston-Surrett, D., Maclin, O. H., Zimmerman, L. A., et al. (2008). Study space analysis for policy development. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 78–801.
- Malpass, R. S., Tredoux, C. G., & McQuiston-Surrett, D. (2009). Public policy and sequential lineups. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 14, 1–12.
- McAllister, H. A., Bearden, J. N., Kohlmaier, J. R., & Warner, M. D. (1997). Computerized mug books: Does adding multimedia help? Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 688–698.
- McAllister, H. A., Blair, M. J., Cerone, L. G., & Laurent, M. J. (2000). Multimedia mug books: how multi should media be? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14, 277–291.
- McAllister, H. A., Stewart, H. A., & Loveland, J. (2003). Effects of mug book size and computerized pruning on the usefulness of dynamic mug book procedures. Psychology, Crime & Law, 9, 265–278.
- Memon, A., Havard, C., Clifford, B., & Gabbert, F. (2009). A field evaluation of the VIPER system: A new technique for eliciting eyewitness identification evidence. Manuscript submitted for publication.
- O'Toole, A. J., Roark, D. A., & Abdi, H. (2002). Recognizing moving faces: A psychological and neural synthesis. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 261–266.
- Parker, J. F., & Carranza, L. E. (1989). Eyewitness testimony of children in target-present and target absent line-ups. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 133–149.
- Parker, J. F., & Ryan, V. (1993). An attempt to reduce guessing behavior in children's and adults' eyewitness identification. Law & Human Behavior, 17, 11–26.
- Pike, G. E., Kemp, R. I., Towell, N. A., & Phillips, K. C. (1997). Recognizing moving faces: The relative contribution of motion and perspective view information. Visual Cognition, 4, 409–437.
- Police and Criminal Evidence Act. (1984). Codes of Practice (2008). Retrieved from the web on 01/04/09: http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/operational-policing/powers-pace-codes/pace-code-intro/
- Pozzulo, J. D., & Balfour, J. (2006). Children's and adults eye witness identification accuracy when a culprit changes his appearance: Comparing simultaneous and elimination line up procedures. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 11, 25–34.
- Pozzulo, J. D., & Dempsey, J. (2006). Biased lineup instructions: Examining the effect of pressure on children's and adults' eyewitness identification accuracy. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 6, 1381–1394.
-
Pozzulo, J. D., &
Lindsay, R.
(1997).
Increasing correct identification by children.
Expert Evidence,
5,
126–132.
10.1023/A:1008875802767 Google Scholar
- Pozzulo, J. D., & Lindsay, R. (1998). Identification accuracy of children versus adults: A meta-analysis. Law & Human Behavior, 549–570.
- Pozzulo, J. D., & Lindsay, R. (1999). Elimination lineups: An improved identification procedure for child eyewitnesses. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 167–176.
- Pozzulo, J. D., & Warren, K. L. (2003). Descriptors and identifications of strangers by youth and adult eye witnesses. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 3–5. 323.
- Roark, D. A., O'Toole, A. J., & Abdi, H. (2006). Learning the moves: The effect of familiarity and facial motion on person recognition across large changes in viewing format. Perception, 35, 761–773.
- Schiff, W., Banka, L., & de Bordes Galdi, G. (1986). Recognizing people seen in events via dynamic ‘mug shots’. American Journal of Psychology, 99, 219–231.
- Shapiro, P. N., & Penrod, S. (1986). Meta-analysis of facial identification studies. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 139–156.
- Skelton, F., & Hay, D. (2008). Do children utilize motion when recognizing faces? Visual Cognition, 16, 419–429.
- Valentine, T., Darling, S., & Memon, A. (2007). Do strict rules and moving images increase the reliability of sequential identification procedures? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 933–949.
- Vulnerable Witness Act Scotland. (2004). Retrieved from the web on 01 April 09: http://www. opsi.gov.uk/legislation/scotland/acts2004/asp_20040003_en_1
- Wells, G. L., Memon, A., & Penrod, S. D. (2006). Eyewitness evidence. Improving it's probative value. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7, 45–74.
- Wells, G. L., & Windschitl, P. D. (1999). Stimulus sampling and social psychological experimentation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1115–1125.
- Zajac, R., & Karageorge, A. (2009). The wildcard: A simple technique for improving children's target-absent lineup performance. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 358–368.
