Advertisement

Law and Human Behavior

, Volume 32, Issue 6, pp 526–535 | Cite as

How Variations in Distance Affect Eyewitness Reports and Identification Accuracy

  • R. C. L. Lindsay
  • Carolyn Semmler
  • Nathan Weber
  • Neil Brewer
  • Marilyn R. Lindsay
Original Article

Abstract

Witnesses observe crimes at various distances and the courts have to interpret their testimony given the likely quality of witnesses’ views of events. We examined how accurately witnesses judged the distance between themselves and a target person, and how distance affected description accuracy, choosing behavior, and identification test accuracy. Over 1,300 participants were approached during normal daily activities, and asked to observe a target person at one of a number of possible distances. Under a Perception, Immediate Memory, or Delayed Memory condition, witnesses provided a brief description of the target, estimated the distance to the target, and then examined a 6-person target-present or target-absent lineup to see if they could identify the target. Errors in distance judgments were often substantial. Description accuracy was mediocre and did not vary systematically with distance. Identification choosing rates were not affected by distance, but decision accuracy declined with distance. Contrary to previous research, a 15-m viewing distance was not critical for discriminating accurate from inaccurate decisions.

Keywords

Eyewitness identification Lineup Description Distance 

References

  1. Brewer, N., & Wells, G. L. (2006). The confidence-accuracy relationship in eyewitness identification: Effects of lineup instructions, foil similarity and target-absent base rates. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 12, 11–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. De Jong, M., Wagenaar, W. A., Wolters, G., & Verstijnen, I. M. (2005). Familiar face recognition as a function of distance and illumination: A practical tool for use in the courtroom. Psychology, Crime & Law, 11, 87–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Greene, E., & Fraser, S. C. (2002). Observation distance and recognition of photographs of celebrities’ faces. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 95, 637–651.Google Scholar
  4. Harway, N. I. (1963). Judgment of distance in children and adults. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65, 385–390.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Illinois v Levin 1991, 152 Ill. App. 824.Google Scholar
  6. Kerst, S. M., & Howard, J. H. (1978). Memory psychophysics for visual area and length. Memory & Cognition, 6, 327–335.Google Scholar
  7. Kunnapas, T. (1960). Scales of subjective distance. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 1, 187–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Lindsay, D. S., Nilsen, E., & Read, J. D. (2000). Witnessing-condition heterogeneity and witnesses’ versus investigators’ confidence in the accuracy of witnesses’ identification decisions. Law & Human Behavior, 24, 685–697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lindsay, R. C. L., Mansour, J. K., Beaudry, J. L., Leach, A. M., & Bertrand, M. I. (in press). Simultaneous and sequential lineups: The problem of eyewitness identification error. Legal & Criminological Psychology.Google Scholar
  11. Loftus, G. R., & Harley, E. M. (2005). Why is it easier to identify someone close than far away? Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 12, 43–65.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Meissner, C. A., & Brigham, J. C. (2001). Thirty years of investigating the own-race bias in memory for faces: A meta-analytic review. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 7, 3–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Penrod, S. (2006). Eyewitness guessing and choosing. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society, St. Petersburg, FL.Google Scholar
  14. Searcy, J. H., Bartlett, J. C., & Memon, A. (1999). Age differences in accuracy and choosing in eyewitness identification and face recognition. Memory & Cognition, 27, 538–552.Google Scholar
  15. Searcy, J. H., Bartlett, J. C., Memon, A., & Swanson, K. (2001). Aging and lineup performance at long retention intervals: Effects of metamemory and context reinstatement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 207–214.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Stevens, S. S. (1957). On the psychophysical law. Psychological Review, 64, 153–181.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Thorndyke, P. W. (1981). Distance estimation from cognitive maps. Cognitive Psychology, 13, 526–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Wagenaar, W. A., & van der Schrier, J. H. (1996). Face recognition as a function of distance and illumination: A practical tool for use in the courtroom. Psychology, Crime & Law, 2, 321–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Weber, N., Brewer, N., Wells, G. L., Semmler, C., & Keast, A. (2004). Eyewitness identification and response latency: The unruly 10–12 second rule. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 10, 139–147.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Wells, G. L., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (1980). On estimating the diagnosticity of eyewitness nonidentifications. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 776–784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Wiest, W. M., & Bell, B. (1985). Steven’s exponent for psychophysical scaling of perceived, remembered, and inferred distance. Psychological Bulletin, 98, 457–470.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Witmer, B. G., & Kline, P. B. (1998). Judging perceived and transversed distance in virtual environments. Presence, 7, 144–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Wright, D. B. (1995). Misinformation methodologies: Explaining the effect of errant information. In G. M. Davies, S. Lloyd-Bostock, M. McMurren, & J. C. Wilson (Eds.), Psychology, law and criminal justice: International developments in research and practice (pp. 39–45). Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© American Psychology-Law Society/Division 41 of the American Psychological Association 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. C. L. Lindsay
    • 1
  • Carolyn Semmler
    • 2
  • Nathan Weber
    • 3
  • Neil Brewer
    • 3
  • Marilyn R. Lindsay
    • 1
  1. 1.Queen’s UniversityKingstonCanada
  2. 2.University of AdelaideAdelaideAustralia
  3. 3.Flinders UniversityAdelaideAustralia

Personalised recommendations