Suspect/foil identification in actual crimes and in the laboratory: a reality monitoring analysis.
Four reality monitoring variables were used to discriminate suspect from foil identifications in 183 actual criminal cases. Four hundred sixty-one identification attempts based on five and six-person lineups were analyzed. These identification attempts resulted in 238 suspect identifications and 68 foil identifications. Confidence, automatic processing, eliminative processing and feature use comprised the set of reality monitoring variables. Thirty-five verbal confidence phrases taken from police reports were assigned numerical values on a 10-point confidence scale. Automatic processing identifications were those that occurred "immediately" or "without hesitation." Eliminative processing identifications occurred when witnesses compared or eliminated persons in the lineups. Confidence, automatic processing and eliminative processing were significant predictors, but feature use was not. Confidence was the most effective discriminator. In cases that involved substantial evidence extrinsic to the identification 43% of the suspect identifications were made with high confidence, whereas only 10% of the foil identifications were made with high confidence. The results of a laboratory study using the same predictors generally paralleled the archival results. Forensic implications are discussed.
Behrman
Bruce W
BW
Department of Psychology, California State University, Sacramento, California 95819, USA. Behrmanbw@csus.edu
Richards
Regina E
RE
D000328:Adult; D002140:California; D003415:Crime / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D003416:Criminal Law / Q000379:methods* / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007753:Laboratories; D008297:Male; D021641:Recognition, Psychology; D014796:Visual Perception