Event Type
Research Presentation
Academic Department
Psychology
Location
Dana Science Building, 2nd floor
Start Date
25-4-2025 1:00 PM
End Date
25-4-2025 2:30 PM
Description
Under the direction of Dr. Alex Wooten
This study investigated how encoding time, perpetrator race, and procedure interact in creating accurate eyewitness identifications. While previous studies have investigated these variables (Marcon et al., 2010; Nguyen et al., 2017), none have examined their interactive effects. Participants (N = 1,700) through Prolific were randomized into various conditions, each containing two blocks. Each block had a perpetrator face, either a same-race (white) face, or cross-race (black) face, viewed for either a short encoding period (1 second), or long encoding period (5 seconds), followed by a distractor task. After, they were given an identification procedure (1-person showup or a 6-person lineup), where the perpetrator was either present or absent. Participants were asked to either identify the perpetrator, or to reject the procedure, and then gave a confidence rating for their decision. The cross-race effect, our own ability to better recognize faces of our own race compared to other races (Meissner & Brigham, 2001), was still found across all conditions regardless of encoding time and procedure type. Same-race lineups showed the highest correct identification rates, while cross-race lineups showed the highest false alarm rates, even compared to cross-race showups. Having a longer encoding time greatly increased accuracy for same-race identifications, but that same jump in identification accuracy was not nearly as high comparatively for cross-race identifications. Even if an eyewitness who has seen a cross-race perpetrator for a long period of time believes to have made a positive identification, that does not necessarily mean it may be a correct decision.
Mistaken Identity? Examining Race, Time, and Procedure in Eyewitness Memory
Dana Science Building, 2nd floor
Under the direction of Dr. Alex Wooten
This study investigated how encoding time, perpetrator race, and procedure interact in creating accurate eyewitness identifications. While previous studies have investigated these variables (Marcon et al., 2010; Nguyen et al., 2017), none have examined their interactive effects. Participants (N = 1,700) through Prolific were randomized into various conditions, each containing two blocks. Each block had a perpetrator face, either a same-race (white) face, or cross-race (black) face, viewed for either a short encoding period (1 second), or long encoding period (5 seconds), followed by a distractor task. After, they were given an identification procedure (1-person showup or a 6-person lineup), where the perpetrator was either present or absent. Participants were asked to either identify the perpetrator, or to reject the procedure, and then gave a confidence rating for their decision. The cross-race effect, our own ability to better recognize faces of our own race compared to other races (Meissner & Brigham, 2001), was still found across all conditions regardless of encoding time and procedure type. Same-race lineups showed the highest correct identification rates, while cross-race lineups showed the highest false alarm rates, even compared to cross-race showups. Having a longer encoding time greatly increased accuracy for same-race identifications, but that same jump in identification accuracy was not nearly as high comparatively for cross-race identifications. Even if an eyewitness who has seen a cross-race perpetrator for a long period of time believes to have made a positive identification, that does not necessarily mean it may be a correct decision.