INTRODUCTION

1. False Identification: Effect of Suggestion and Repeated Exposure On Eyewitness Testimony Lawrence Patihis, Nicole Brooks, Andrea Escobar, Shawn Hill, Hayley Latter, Tanawat Sadsomboon, & Robert Youmans METHOD INTRODUCTION • Photo Line-Up 3: Innocent (#1), • Culprit (#3), & four others. • In this 2x3 mixed-participant design, 51 participants were randomly assigned to the suggestive-wording or neutral-wording condition. • Participants viewed a video of an innocent passer-by followed by a culprit stealing a purse: • Participants were asked to identify the culprit from series of three photo line-ups, each featuring the innocent. • False identification of innocent passer-by is significantly higher than chance (nonparametric binomial, p = .000). • Both groups falsely identified at high levels from the start. • Final line-up: 39.2% incorrectly identified the innocent bystander, but only 11.8% correctly identified the real culprit (nonparametric binomial, p = .000). • No significant difference between suggestive and neutral groups (between-participant) or between line-ups (within-participant) (X 2, ns). Question: Would you be happy with a toss of a coin (50%), or a roll of a dice (17%) determining your guilt? Past research: • Eyewitness testimony can be unreliable • In the U.S., 175 prisoners sentenced by eyewitness identification later were proven innocent by DNA evidence (Stahl, 2009). Question Wording: Suggestive-wording: Neutral Wording: ■ Pozzulo and Dempsey (2006) found that suggestive instructions increased false identification in photo lineups. ■ Memon, Hope, Bartlett, & Bull (2002) found repeated exposure of an innocent’s photo increased false identification. Innocent Culprit DISCUSSION • Answer Sheet: • Trend: possible significance for suggestion or exposure IVs with a larger sample. • Neutral group: high false identification rates. • Implications to law – get corroborating evidence, especially with identification of non-familiar faces. • Follow up experiment could investigate: • use of higher definition video • hair color matching of all “other” faces Photo Line-up Tasks: • Photo Line-Up 1: Innocent (#2) + five others Hypotheses: 1. Participants in a suggestive-wording condition will falsely identify the innocent passer-by more than a neutral condition (between-participants IV = suggestion). 2. Repeated exposure of an innocent passer-by will increase false identification of her (within-participants IV = exposures). DV: Percentage of false identification of the innocent passer-by. RESULTS REFERENCES • Photo Line-Up #2: Innocent (#6) + five others Memon, A., Hope, L., Bartlett, J., and Bull, R. (2002). Eyewitness recognition errors: The effects of mugshot viewing and choosing in young and old adults. Memory and Cognition, 30, 1219-1227. Pozzulo, J., & Dempsey, J. (2006). Biased lineup instructions: Examining the effect of pressure on children's and adults‘ eyewitness identification accuracy. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 1381-1394. Stahl, L. (2009). Eyewitness. 60 Minutes, March 8, 2009.(Television broadcast). Retrieved April 28, 2009, from < http://www.cbsnews. com/video/watch/?id=4852659n >.