Forensic Psychology

by Graham M Davies

  Davis and Valentine (2009) examined people’s ability to match a person filmed in a 40-second, high-quality video to somebody physically present in the room. This comparison was intended to simulate the task facing a member of the jury who watches a video sequence in a court in the presence of the defendant. The video displayed views of each actor’s face and body from a number of different angles and was played up to three times. The error rate was approximately 20% (22% target present; 17% target absent); that is, one in five “witnesses” was mistaken under ideal conditions when there was no requirement to remember the culprit’s face and there was no time pressure. In the case of one particular actor, 44% of participants incorrectly judged an “innocent defendant” to be the actor in the video sequence.

  BOX 15.5 FORENSIC IMPLICATIONS OF USING CCTV IMAGES FOR IDENTIFICATION

  Photographs of different people can look remarkably similar to each other.

  Two images of the same person can look very different, when taken with different cameras.

  Faces of familiar people (e.g. colleagues, friends or family) can be recognised accurately even from low quality images, such as those obtained from CCTV.

  Matching the identity of unfamiliar people in images taken by different cameras is error-prone, even if the images are high quality.

  Both inclusion errors (judging two different people to be the same person) and exclusion errors (judging images of the same person to be different people) are common.

  Matching facial identity is error-prone even when there is no requirement to remember a face.

  CCTV is a powerful investigative tool, which can help identify potential suspects worthy of further investigation. Evidential use of CCTV as a means of establishing disputed identification in court should be treated with great caution.

  There are substantial individual differences in face recognition ability. About 1–2% of the population show exceptional face recognition abilities by performing more than two standard deviations above the mean on standardised tests of face recognition (Russell, Duchaine, & Nakayama, 2009). The basic abilities underlying these individual differences are poorly understood, but the exceptional ability appears to be restricted to face processing (Bindemann, Avetisyan, & Rakow, 2012; Davis, Jansari, & Lander, 2013). People with exceptional ability in recognising faces (known as super- recognisers) also show superior face-matching ability (Bobak, Hancock, & Bate, 2015). Extensive experience in performing face-matching tasks does not lead to enhanced ability. White, Kemp, Jenkins, Matheson, and Burton (2014) found that experienced border guards made a 14% false-acceptance rate when comparing photographs to a “live” person. The border guards performed no more accurately than students on a face-matching task, and showed comparable face recognition skills to the general population. Efforts to train face-matching skills in the laboratory have shown, at best, only modest benefit (Alenezi & Bindemann, 2013).

  As face-processing skills cannot be enhanced by training, the most appropriate strategy to enhance face-matching performance in tasks critical for security (e.g. border guards, police surveillance) is to select naturally gifted super-recognisers for the relevant roles. Following the London riots in 2011, the Metropolitan Police collated thousands of images of unidentified rioters and looters, which were circulated to police officers. It became apparent that 20 officers made over 600 identifications. More than three-quarters of the suspects confessed their involvement at interview. Subsequent laboratory tests have identified some police officers who show exceptional face recognition and matching skills (Davis et al., 2013). The Metropolitan Police now tactically deploy “super-recognisers” to key roles to identify known suspects through CCTV surveillance, for example during the London Notting Hill Carnival; Sims, 2015).

  15.10 CONCLUSIONS

  Our ability to judge that a face has been seen before can exceed our ability to recall the circumstances in which it was encountered. Reliance on a feeling of familiarity at a formal identification procedure can be especially prone to mistaken identification. There is ample evidence that mistakes by eyewitnesses occur frequently, and are the leading cause of wrongful convictions. Therefore, the procedures to obtain formal identification evidence should be designed and used with care.

  Procedures that do not require selection amongst alternatives (e.g. dock identification, a show-up or street identification) do not provide a test that can expose an error by a witness, and the context can be highly suggestive. A witness should not participate in repeated identification procedures. In selection methods careful consideration must be given to the design of the procedure, including the choice of plausible foils and the instructions given to the witness. Two methods have been advocated to improve the probative value of lineup procedures: selection of foils who match the witness’s description of the culprit (rather than on the basis of their similarity to the suspect); and sequential rather than simultaneous presentation of images. However, recent evidence, especially in the UK operational context, shows at best mixed results. Recommendations to change existing practice in these respects would be inappropriate.

  Increasing surveillance by CCTV has had a marked impact on criminal investigations. Identification of unfamiliar faces from CCTV images can be surprisingly error-prone. Images of different people can look very similar, whilst images of the same person, especially when taken with different cameras, can look very different. Although CCTV may appear to give an opportunity to overcome the frailties of human eyewitness memory, CCTV itself poses significant issues of human misidentification.

  We are familiar with the image of crime scene investigators dressing in paper suits and latex gloves taking care not to contaminate the crime scene by introducing rogue samples or destroying evidence, whilst endeavouring to detect every minuscule trace that might link the offender to the scene. It is useful to extend this approach, by thinking of the memory of an eyewitness as part of a crime scene. The investigators need to use sensitive, unbiased procedures to obtain reliable eyewitness identification. Equally the investigators must take great care to avoid contaminating the witness’ memory by using multiple identification procedures or biased lineups, or providing feedback to witnesses.

  15.11 SUMMARY

  Mistaken identification by eyewitnesses is the leading cause of wrongful convictions.

  Reliance on a feeling of familiarity can be especially error-prone.

  Factors that affect the accuracy of eyewitness identification include the length of time the witness was able to view the culprit, high stress experienced by a witness, and the age of the witness.

  A witness should not participate in repeated identification procedures, to avoid a potential misattribution of familiarity.

  Witnesses who make an accurate identification tend to express higher confidence than witnesses who make a mistaken identification; however, it is common for confident witnesses to be mistaken.

  The confidence of an eyewitness is affected by information acquired afterwards, for example being told whether the person identified is the police suspect.

  Identification of unfamiliar faces from CCTV images can be surprisingly error-prone. Images of different people can look very similar, whilst images of the same person can look very different.

  There are substantial individual differences in the ability to recognise and match faces from images, but training has not been found to be effective. For security purposes, deploying people with naturally exceptional face recognition and matching skills (so-called “super-recognisers”) in key roles can be highly effective.

  The memory of an eyewitness should be regarded as part of a crime scene. Therefore, procedures must be designed to avoid distorting the witness’s memory.

  ESSAY/DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

  What insights does psychological science provide into our understanding of mistaken eyewitness identification?

  Compare the strengths and weaknesses of laboratory studies of eyewitness identification with those of archival studies.

  What practica
l advice, based on psychological research, would you offer to the police authorities regarding the fair and effective conduct of identification parades?

  Discuss the strengths and limitations of CCTV evidence as an aid to identifying offenders.

  ANNOTATED READING LIST

  Bogan, P., & Roberts, A. (2011). Identification: Investigation, trial and scientific evidence (2nd ed.). London: Jordans. A comprehensive source on English law applied to identification evidence.

  Schachter, D. L. (1999). The seven sins of memory. Insights from psychology and cognitive neuroscience. American Psychologist, 54, 183–203. An authoritative review of the evidence of the fallibility of human memory including memory distortions such as misattribution, suggestibility and bias. It is argued that these flaws of human memory are the by-product of otherwise adaptive features of memory.

  Thompson, J. (2000, June 18). “I was certain but I was wrong.” New York Times. Retrieved from http://truthinjustice.org/positive_id.htm A compelling statement by Jennifer Thompson, who confidently identified Ronald Cotton as the man who raped her. Ronald Cotton was subsequently exonerated by DNA evidence after serving 11 years of a life sentence.

  Valentine, T., & Davis, J. P. (2015). Forensic facial identification: Theory and practice of identification from eyewitnesses, composites and CCTV. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. A collection of state-of-the-art reviews by leading experts who cover all scientific and legal aspects of identification by eyewitnesses, and from CCTV, including automatic recognition and facial analysis by expert witnesses.

  REFERENCES

  Alenezi, H. M., & Bindemann, M. (2013). The effect of feedback on face-matching accuracy. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27, 735–753.

  Bartlett, J. C., & Fulton, A. (1991). Familiarity and recognition of faces in old age. Memory & Cognition, 19, 229–238.

  Behrman, B. W., & Davey, S. L. (2001). Eyewitness identification in actual criminal cases: An archival analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 475–491.

  Bindemann, M., Avetisyan, M., & Rakow, T. (2012). Who can recognize unfamiliar faces? Individual differences and observer consistency in person recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 18, 277–291.

  Bobak, A. K., Hancock, P. J. B., & Bate, S. (2015). Super-recognisers in action: Evidence from face-matching and face memory tasks. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 30(1), 81–91.

  Brewer (2006). Uses and abuses of eyewitness identification confidence. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 11, 3–23.

  Bruce, V. (1982). Changing faces: Visual and non-visual coding processes in face recognition. British Journal of Psychology, 73, 105–116.

  Bruce, V., Henderson, Z., Greenwood, K., Hancock, P., Burton, A. M., & Miller, P. (1999). Verification of face identities from images captured on video. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 5, 339–360.

  Bruce, V., Henderson, Z., Newman, C., & Burton, A. M. (2001). Matching identities of familiar and unfamiliar faces caught on CCTV images. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 7, 207–218.

  Burton, A. M., Wilson, S., Cowan, M., & Bruce, V. (1999). Face recognition in poor quality video: Evidence from security surveillance. Psychological Science, 10, 243–248.

  Chiroro, P., & Valentine, T. (1995). An investigation of the contact hypothesis of the own-race bias in face recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48A, 879–894.

  Clark, S. E. (2012). Costs and benefits of eyewitness identification reform: Psychological science and public policy. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 238–259.

  Clark, S. E., & Davey, S. L. (2005). The targets-to-foils shift in simultaneous and sequential lineups. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 151–172.

  Clark, S. E., Moreland, M. B., & Rush, R. A. (2015). Lineup composition and lineup fairness. In T. Valentine & J. P. Davis (Eds.). Forensic facial identification: Theory and practice of identification from eyewitnesses, composites and CCTV (pp. 129–157). Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.

  Cutler, B. L., Berman, G. L., Penrod, S., & Fisher, R. P. (1994). Conceptual, practical and empirical issues associated with eyewitness identification test media. In Ross, D. F., Read, J. D., & Toglia, M. P. (Eds.), Adult eyewitness testimony: Current trends and developments (pp. 163–181). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  Darling, S., Valentine, T., & Memon, A. (2008). Selection of lineup foils in operational contexts. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 159-169.

  Davis, J. P., Jansari, A., & Lander, K. (2013). I never forget a face! The Psychologist, 26, 726–729.

  Davis, J. P., & Valentine, T. (2009). CCTV on trial: Matching video images with the defendant in the dock. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 482–505.

  Davis, J. P., Valentine, T., Memon, A., & Roberts, A. (2015) Identification on the street: A field comparison of police street identifications and video line-ups in England. Psychology, Crime & Law, 21, 9–27.

  Deffenbacher, K. A., Bornstein, G. H., McGorty, E. K., & Penrod, S. D. (2008). Forgetting the once-seen face: Estimating the strength of an eyewitness’s memory representation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 14, 139–150.

  Deffenbacher, K. A., Bornstein, B. H., & Penrod, S. D (2006). Mugshot exposure effects: retroactive interference, mugshot commitment, source confusion and unconscious transference. Law and Human Behavior, 30, 287–307.

  Deffenbacher, K. A., Bornstein, B. H., Penrod, S. D., & McGorty, K. (2004). A meta-analytic review of the effects of high stress on eyewitness memory. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 687–706.

  Devlin, P. (1976). Report to the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the Departmental Committee on Evidence of Identification in Criminal Cases. London: HMSO.

  Fawcett, J. M., Russell, E. J., Peace, K. A., & Christie, J. (2013). Of guns and geese: A meta-analytic review of the “weapon focus” literature. Psychology, Crime & Law, 16, 35–66.

  Fitzgerald, R. J., Price, H. L., Oriet, C., & Charman, S. D. (2013). The effect of foil - suspect similarity on eyewitness identification decisions: A meta-analysis. Psychology, Public Policy & Law, 19, 151–164.

  Gabbert, F., & Brown, C. (2015). Interviewing for face identification. In T. Valentine & J. P. Davis (Eds.), Forensic facial identification: Theory and practice of identification from eyewitnesses, composites and CCTV. (pp. 17–41). Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.

  Gage v. Her Majesty’s Advocate (2006) Scot HCJ AC 7. Retrieved from http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotHC/2006/HCJAC_7.html

  Gage v. Her Majesty’s Advocate (2012) Scot HCJ AC 14. Retrieved from http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotHC/2012/2012HCJAC14.html

  Harris, M. J., & Rosenthal, R. (1985). Mediation of interpersonal expectancy effects: 31 meta- analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 363–386.

  Henderson, Z., Bruce, V., & Burton, A. M. (2001). Matching the faces of robbers captured on video. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 15, 445–464.

  Hope, L., & Wright, D. (2007). Beyond unusual? Examining the role of attention in the weapon focus effect. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 951–961.

  Horry, R., Memon, A., Wright, D. B., & Milne, R. (2012). Predictors of eyewitness identification decisions from video lineups in England: A field study. Law and Human Behavior, 36, 257–265.

  Innocence Project (2015). Retrieved from http://www.innocenceproject.org/causes- wrongful-conviction

  Juslin, P., Olsson, N., & Winman, A. (1996). Calibration and diagnosticity of confidence in eyewitness identification: Comments on what can be inferred from the low confidence-accuracy correlation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 22, 1304–1316.

  Lindsay, D. S., Read, J. D., & Sharma, K., (1998). Accuracy and confidence in person identification: The relationship is strong when witnessing conditions vary widely. Psychological Science, 9, 215–218.

  Lindsay, R. C. L., Lea, J. A., & Fulford, J. A. (1991). Sequential lineup presentation: Technique matters. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 741–745.

  Lindsay, R. C. L., Martin, R., & Webber, L.
(1994). Default values in eyewitness descriptions: A problem for the match-to-description lineup foil selection strategy. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 527–541.

  Lindsay, R. C. L., & Wells, G. L. (1985). Improving eyewitness identification from lineups: Simultaneous versus sequential presentation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 343–350.

  Luus, C. A. E., & Wells, G. L. (1991). Eyewitness identification and the selection of distracters for lineups. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 43–57.

  Meissner, C. A., & Brigham, J. C. (2001). Thirty years of investigating the own-race bias in memory for faces. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 7, 3–35.

  Meissner, C. A., Sporer, S. L., & Susa, K. J. (2008). A theoretical review and meta-analysis of the description-identification relationship in memory for faces. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 20, 414–455.

  Meissner, C. A., Tredoux, C. G., Parker, J. F., & MacLin, O. (2005). Eyewitness decisions in simultaneous and sequential lineups: A dual-process signal detection theory analysis. Memory & Cognition, 33, 783–792.

  Memon, A., Hope, L., & Bull, R. (2003). Exposure duration: Effects on eyewitness accuracy and confidence. British Journal of Psychology, 94, 339–354.

  Mickes, L., Flowe, H. D., & Wixted, J. T. (2012). Receiver operating characteristic analysis of eyewitness memory: Comparing the diagnostic accuracy of simultaneous versus sequential lineups. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied: 18, 361–375.