Eyewitness identification: Lineup instructions and the absence of the offender

Abstract

100 college student eyewitnesses of a staged vandalism received varying lineup instructions under conditions in which the offender was present or absent. Biased instructions implied that Ss were to choose someone, whereas unbiased instructions provided a "no choice" option. Ss viewed corporeal lineups on 1 of 3 evenings following the vandalism. A high rate of choosing occurred under biased instructions, and the lowest rate occurred under unbiased instructions with the vandal absent. Identification errors were highest under biased instructions with the vandal absent. With the vandal present under biased instructions all errors were false identifications, whereas under unbiased instructions all errors were false rejections of the lineup. Confidence ratings were obtained following Ss' identification decision. Ss making a choice had high confidence scores, whereas those rejecting the lineup had low confidence scores. Unbiased instructions reduced choosing and false identifications without decreasing correct identifications. Both identifications and nonidentifications had greater "diagnosticity" under unbiased than under biased instructions. (27 ref) (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved)