For Peer Review O

nly

Own age bias in video lineups: A comparison between

children and adults.

Journal: Psychology, Crime and Law

Manuscript ID: GPCL-2010-0072.R1

Manuscript Type: Empirical Study

Keywords: Child Eyewitness, Adult Witnesses, age, Identification Accuracy,

recognition

URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/gpcl Email: user@test.demo

Psychology, Crime and Law

For Peer Review O

nly

1

Abstract

The present study investigated whether child (6-8 years of age) and adult witnesses (18-29 years of

age) would exhibit an own age bias and when trying to identify targets from video lineups. One

hundred and eighty six participants viewed two filmed events that were identical, except one starred a

child target and one a young adult. After a delay of 2-3 days each witness saw a lineup for the child and

adult target. Children exhibited an own-age bias and were better at correctly identifying the own-age

target from a target present (TP) lineup and made more correct rejections for the own-age target absent

(TA) lineup. Adults however, showed a reversed own age bias for the TP lineups as they made more

correct identifications for the child target, but exhibited no bias for the TA lineups. The results suggest

that differences in identification accuracy may be due to whether witness age and suspect age overlap.

Page 2 of 33

URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/gpcl Email: user@test.demo

Psychology, Crime and Law

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

2

Introduction

Many children who witness crimes are asked by the police to make an identification from a lineup

(Pike, Brace & Kynan, 2002). One survey found that one third of witnesses who were asked to make an

identification from a video parade were under the age of 16 years (Memon, Havard, Clifford &

Gabbert, 2010). This survey also found that children under the age of 11 years were more likely to be

victims of crime than older children (aged 12-15 years), and children under 16 years could identify a

suspect from a lineup as accurately as an adult. Research investigating eyewitness identification has

supported these data and reports that children over five years of age can be as accurate as adults when

identifying a culprit from a target-present (TP) lineup (Goodman & Reed, 1986; Lindsay et al., 1997;

Parker & Carranza, 1989; Parker & Ryan, 1993; Pozzulo & Balfour, 2006; Pozzulo & Lindsay, 1998).

However, when presented with a target-absent (TA) lineup where the culprit is not present, children are

more inclined to choose a lineup member than adults, and thereby make a false identification (Beal,

Schmitt & Dekle, 1995; Dekle, Beal, Elliot & Huneycutt, 1996; Lindsay et al., 1997; Parker &

Carranza, 1989; Parker & Ryan, 1993; Pozzulo & Balfour, 2006; Pozzulo & Warren, 2003).

There are a number of explanations as to why children perform more poorly on target absent lineups as

compared to adults. These performance differences may not necessarily be due to differences in

encoding and storage, but may relate to the social demands of the retrieval process (Ceci, Ross &

Toglia, 1987; Pozzulo & Lindsay, 1998; 1999). Children are more likely to choose from a lineup and

therefore more likely to guess, as compared to adults (Parker & Carranza, 1989). Researchers have

argued that simply being presented with a lineup places implicit pressure on the witness to choose and

adults may be more able to resist this pressure than children (Beal et al., 1995; Ceci et al., 1987).

Page 3 of 33

URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/gpcl Email: user@test.demo

Psychology, Crime and Law

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

3

Another factor that might influence face recognition accuracy is the age of the target face and whether

the target face is the same age as the witness. It has been suggested that there is an own-age bias in face

recognition, and that faces that are close to the observers age are recognised more accurately than faces

further from the observers age. Face recognition and eyewitness studies typically use young adult target

faces, even when the participants are children. A number of eyewitness studies have used a target aged

from early to mid twenties, however the participants have been 3-6 year olds (Dekle et al., 1996;

Goodman & Reed, 1986), 6-10 year olds (Beresford & Blades, 2006) and 8- 11 year olds (Parker &

Caranza, 1989; Parker & Ryan, 1993; Zajac & Karageorge, 2009). A number of other studies have used

an adult target, but have not given an age for the target and the participants who took part in the study

were aged 8- 13 years (Pozzulo & Balfour, 2006) and 10 -14 years (Pozzulo & Lindsay, 1998; Pozzulo

& Warren, 2003). There is some evidence supporting an own-age bias in laboratory studies of face

recognition and in eyewitness simulations (Anastasi & Rhodes, 2005; 2006; Backman, 1991; Perfect &

Harris, 2003; Perfect & Moon, 2005; Wright & Shroud, 2002). Anastasi and Rhodes (2005) asked

children (aged 5-8 years) and older adults (aged 55-89 years) to categorise a series of faces into age

groups and then administered a face recognition test. They found that participants were better at

recognising faces of their own age compared to other age faces, and also more conservative in their

responses to own-age faces, that is they were less likely to make false positives to unseen faces. In

another study, Anastasi and Rhodes (2006) found further confirmation of the own age bias in younger

(18-25 year olds) and older adults (over 55 years), who again were asked to categorise faces according

to age and then 48 hours later were given a recognition test. They found that the younger adults did not

show an own age bias, however older adults were more accurate with older and middle aged faces.

Perfect and Moon (2005) also carried out a face recognition study and found that older adults (aged 65-

80 years) and young adults (aged 20-24 years) were more likely to correctly identify own-age faces and

each group made more false positive responses to other-age faces.

Page 4 of 33

URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/gpcl Email: user@test.demo

Psychology, Crime and Law

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

4

Some studies have found an own age bias, but not for the target age group predicted. Bartlett and Leslie

(1986) compared recognition rates of young adults (aged 18 years) and older adults (mean age 74

years) and found that there was an own age bias for face recognition, but only for young adults,

whereas older adults showed no effect of age of face. Similarly, Fulton and Bartlett (1991) compared

face recognition abilities of young adults (aged 20-36 years) and older adults (aged 59-82 years) and

also found the own age bias for young adults, but only for correct identifications, and not false alarms,

whereas older adults made more false alarms regardless of age of face. In a further study Rodin (1987,

Experiment 2) tested younger adults (aged 18-25 years) and older adults (aged over 65 years) with

young adult, middle aged and older adult faces. As with the other previously described studies the

younger participants were better at recognising faces their own age, however the older participants

were equally good with the younger and older adults faces and significantly poorer with the middle

aged faces. Rodin (1987) suggested that social interest in the subject determines who is noticed and

remembered, this area will be explored further later on.

The own age bias for facial identification has also been reported in a couple of eyewitness studies.

Wright and Stroud (2002) showed young (18–25 years old) and older (35–55 years old) adults four

simulated crime videos. In two videos the culprit was a young adult and in two the culprit was an older

adult. They found that the younger adults and older adults were better at identifying the own-age culprit

from a TP lineup, however there was no effect of age for the TA lineups. In another study, Perfect and

Harris (2003 Experiment 3) also found that older adults (mean age 66.6 years) were better at

identifying own-age target faces from a lineup, as compared to younger target faces, but no pattern was

found for young adult participants (mean age 22 years). Memon et al. (2003) showed younger (16-33

years of age) and older adult (60-82 years of age) participants’ videos that depicted staged crimes

committed by older and younger criminals and then they were asked to identify the targets from TA

and TP lineups. They found that overall older adults were less accurate and more prone to making false

Page 5 of 33

URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/gpcl Email: user@test.demo

Psychology, Crime and Law

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

5

alarms as compared to the younger adults, and they were especially more likely to make false alarms

with the younger adult lineups.

An own age bias in face recognition has not been consistently found in eyewitness studies. Three

similar studies (Rose et al., 2002; 2005; Wilcock et al., 2005) showed younger and older witnesses a

videoed event with both younger and older adult targets, however none of the studies showed a

significant own age bias for either group. For one of the studies (Rose et al., 2005) a reversed age bias

was reported, where the younger participants were less likely to falsely identify the older culprit from a

TA lineup, as compared to the younger culprit. A reversed own-age bias was also found by Pozzulo

and Demspey (2009). They showed adult witnesses a staged crime with either an adult or child (11

years) target and found that there were more correct identifications for the child target, but more correct

rejections for the adult lineups. It was suggested that adult witnesses were more inclined to choose a

member from the child lineup as they are choosing outside of their cohort. Unfortunately, Pozzulo and

Dempsey did not have any children in their sample and were therefore not able to show a cross over

interaction where children elicited an own age bias.

Several theories have been proposed as to why there may be an advantage in recognising an own age

face. One theoretical account for the own age bias is that it is similar to the own race bias, and may

relate to amount of contact one has with same-age faces (see Brigham & Malpass, 1985; Slone,

Brigham & Meissner, 2000). According to the contact hypothesis, we gain expertise in processing same

race faces as they are more frequently encountered, leading to a processing and retrieval advantage for

own race faces. This expertise leads to a configural or holistic processing mode, where the face is

processed as a whole for own race faces. Other race faces are processed in a less efficient manner

Page 6 of 33

URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/gpcl Email: user@test.demo

Psychology, Crime and Law

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

6

using a featural strategy, where the features are examined in a piecemeal fashion, which can lead to

poorer encoding (Hancock & Rhodes, 2008). There is some evidence to support the contact hypothesis

of the own-age bias. There are studies that have found that adults who were trainee teachers and had

lots of contact with children, processed child faces more accurately than novice adults who did not

have contact with children (Harrison & Hole, 2009). There is also evidence that the own age bias is due

to different processing mechanisms, as research has found that teachers, who had lots of contact with

children, processed children’s faces more holistically than novice adults, who did not have much

contact with children (Kuefer, Macchi Cassia, Picozzi & Bricolo, 2008; Kuefer, Macchi Cassia,

Vescovo & Picozzi, 2010). Another study found that nurses in a maternity hospital processed newborn

faces more by their configuration, as compared to novice adults who did not have contact with

newborns (Macchi Cassia, Picozzi, Kuefer & Casati, 2009).

An alternative, yet similar explanation for the own-age bias was offered by Anastasi and Rhodes (2005;

2006) in relation to Sporer’s in-group/out-group model of face processing (Sporer, 2001). This model

suggests that in-group faces are processed automatically and with expertise, whereas out-group faces

are initially automatically categorised as belonging to the out-group and hence receive inferior

processing by processing category information at the expense of individuating information (Hugenberg,

Young, Bernstein & Sacco, 2010). Anastasi & Rhodes (2005; 2006) suggest that they may have further

promoted in-group/out-group categorisation due to their encoding task (categorising faces according to

age), as this may have made age a more salient category. Furthermore, Rodin (1987) suggests that

when encountering new people decisions are made about whether the person is suitable for social

inclusion and that old age is commonly a disregard criterion, as people who are not old themselves are

unlikely to consider older adults for social relations. Due to this cognitive disregard, faces categorised

as belonging to the out-group may be cognitively ignored (Rodin, 1987) and deemed as deserving less

attention leading to worse recognition of out-group faces (Bernstein, Young & Hugenberg, 2007). It

Page 7 of 33

URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/gpcl Email: user@test.demo

Psychology, Crime and Law

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

7

may also be important if the faces belonging to the out-group are perceived as positive role models, or

disliked individuals as this can in turn influence automatic attitudes (Dasgupta & Greenwald, 2001)

that may influence face recognition (Meissner & Brigham, 2001). The various accounts of the own-age

bias are overlapping and predict an own-age face processing advantage. The data from laboratory

studies of face recognition are fairly consistent, but the picture is less clear regarding the evidence of

the own age bias for children in realistic eyewitnessing situations. Previous research investigating own

age bias for eyewitnesses has compared identification for older adult and younger adult witnesses

(Havard & Memon, 2009; Memon et al., 2003; Perfect & Harris, 2003; Rose et al, 2002, 2003, Wilcock

et al., 2005) and there is still very little research that has investigated how well child witnesses can

identify a target of their own age.

All of the studies mentioned thus far have used static photographs of faces, and relatively few studies

have investigated identification from dynamic images. In the UK video (VIPER: Video Identification

Parades by Electronic Recording) lineups have now replaced live identification parades, however there

is still relatively little research that has investigated how effective they are as a means of suspect

identification. Research has found that video parades can reduce the rate of false identifications from

target absent (TA) lineups as compared to static photographic parades for young adult witnesses (Cutler

& Fisher, 1990, Valentine, Darling & Memon, 2007) and adolescents (Havard, Memon, Clifford and

Gabbert, 2009), but not for children aged 7- 9 years (Beresford & Blades, 2006; Havard et al, 2009).

In the current study, children (6-8 years) and young adult (18-29 years) witnesses were presented with

two short films, one depicting a child target and the other a young adult, both carrying out identical

staged thefts. They were then presented with lineups for both targets, one was always target present and

Page 8 of 33

URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/gpcl Email: user@test.demo

Psychology, Crime and Law

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

8

the other target absent. Although there is conflicting evidence from previous research we made several

tentative hypotheses.

(a) Correct identifications from target present lineups should be similar for adults and children.

(b) Adults should make more correct rejections than children from the target absent lineups.

(c) According to the own-age bias, witnesses may make more correct identifications for their own age

target.

(d) Witnesses should make more correct rejections for their own age target, as compared to the other

age target, although adult witnesses may be more likely to choose on the child lineups regardless of

whether the target is present.

(e) Children will be more likely to choose from both lineups.

Method

Participants

186 participants took part in this study. 100 children aged between 6 to 8 years (M = 7.1 years, 56

females) were recruited from state run primary schools. Consent was obtained from the head teachers

of the schools and parents to carry out the research. In addition 70 undergraduate students (M = 20.9

years, 35 females) were recruited from Edinburgh Napier University, Edinburgh and 16 were football

players recruited from the Hearts Football Club Training Academy in Edinburgh (M = 20.2 years, all

male).

Materials

Two short films were created with two male Caucasian actors: One was 26 years of age; (old target)

and the other was 9 years of age (young target). The films were identical except one starred the adult

target and the other the child target. Each film began with the target walking along a corridor towards

Page 9 of 33

URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/gpcl Email: user@test.demo

Psychology, Crime and Law

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

9

the camera and trying the handles of several doors, until one opened. The next scene is of the target

entering an office looking around and picking up a wallet from the table, then a laptop from another

desk. The target then looks through several drawers and also picks up a mobile phone. The target takes

one final look around the room before leaving. The last scene is of the target walking back up the

corridor with the laptop bag over his shoulder. The total time for each film was 1 minute and 30

seconds. Both targets were seen in full face frontal and profile views throughout the film.

Four lineups were created for each target, half target present (TP) and half target absent (TA).

According the Lord Advocates guidelines, each lineup had 9 members. The targets (actors) were filmed

at a VIPER suite at a local police station in order that the lineup met the standard specific content. The

same foils were used for the TP and TA lineups, apart from the designated target replacement. To

control for factors that might affect identification accuracy, the images used in the lineups, including

the targets were rated by 31 individuals who did not take part in the study. There were two groups of

raters; 12 were aged 6 to 9 years (mean = 8.25 years) and 19 were aged 21- 55 years (mean = 32.1

years). Each face was rated on a 1-7 scale for distinctiveness i.e. ‘if you had to pick this person out of a

crowd at a railway station, how easy would it be?’ The ratings found no significant differences in the

adult target and adult foils (F (9, 261) = 1.57, p = 0.12) and between the child target and the child foils

(F (9, 261) = 1.66, p = 0.10). A paired samples t test directly comparing the ratings for the child target

and the adults target also found there were no significant differences in distinctiveness (M = 4.1 vs. 3.9:

t (30) = 1.09, p = .29).

The positions of both the target replacement (TA lineup) and target (TP lineup) were manipulated so it

appeared at position 4, hereafter referred to as Lineup A and position 6, hereafter referred to as Lineup

B. This manipulation was to try and determine whether there was a bias to choose early or late in the

sequence of faces. Each lineup member appeared as a standard VIPER film. In other words there was a

Page 10 of 33

URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/gpcl Email: user@test.demo

Psychology, Crime and Law

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

10

15 second video clip of the person looking straight to the camera and then turning their head to the

right and then to the left. All the VIPER files contained the head and shoulders and were filmed under

the same lighting conditions against a grey background. Once the film had been made it was sent to the

VIPER headquarters for quality control purposes before being approved. The purpose of quality

control is to ensure that every VIPER film is identical, for example in image quality, lighting, colour

and the speed of the head rotation, additionally to certify the target does not make any facial

movements that might make one clip more salient than another.

Design

The study employed a split plot design; 2 (Target: child vs adult) X2 (line-up type: TP vs TA) were

within-group factors and 2 (Witness: child vs adult) was the between-group factor. Each participant

saw one TP and one TA line-up, which were counterbalanced so that they could appear first or second

and could be either the child or adult target.

The dependent variables were the line-up identification decisions. For the TP line-ups there were three

possible responses, a correct identification (hit), a foil identification (false positive), or an incorrect

rejection (miss). For the TA line-ups responses were either a correct rejection or a false identification.

Data from the target present (TP) and target absent (TA) line-ups were analysed separately, after

analysing the total performance on both line-ups. An additional dependent measure was the confidence

rating, post lineup.

Procedure

In the first phase, groups of 5 to 10 witnesses viewed the two videoed events, again these were

counterbalanced and could therefore see the child or adult target first. The witnesses were asked to

carefully watch the films, as they would be asked some questions about what they had seen. The films

Page 11 of 33

URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/gpcl Email: user@test.demo

Psychology, Crime and Law

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

11

were then shown and the researcher said that more researchers would come back in a few days to ask

questions about the films.

In the second phase two to three days later, participants were tested individually and carried out the

identification task. Instructions were adapted from the Grampian Police guidelines for viewing a video

lineup, the exact instructions for all participants were:

“Do you remember on Monday (or whatever day it was) you saw a film? What happened in the film?

Today I am going to show you a video that has pictures of different people in it and the man/boy you

saw in the film may or may not be there. We will watch the video twice. When we’ve watched the video

I will ask you if can see the man/boy from the film and if you see him I want you tell me what number

he is. Do you understand?”

Then in accordance to the Police & Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) and the Lord Advocates Guidelines

they were shown the lineup twice and told that they could pause the video at any time and they could

go back and see any picture again. After the second viewing the participants were asked if they wanted

to view any part of the lineup again. They were then asked if either the boy (or the man) they had seen

in the film was in the line-up. If they identified a person they were shown the lineup member and

asked, ‘is this the person you saw?’ The participants were then asked how sure they were of their

answer and shown a card which had “very sure” “sure” “in the middle” “unsure” and “very unsure” and

were asked to point to where they felt they were. All the responses were recorded and converted into a

5 point rating scale (1= very unsure and 5 = very sure). Immediately after making a confidence

decision for their answer on the first lineup, the second lineup was shown and this followed the same

procedure as the first. After completing both lineups the participants were thanked for helping with the

research and debriefed.

Page 12 of 33

URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/gpcl Email: user@test.demo

Psychology, Crime and Law

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

12

Results

Effect of age group on total lineup performance

Following Havard and Memon (2009), the accuracy rates were combined for both lineups with lineup

performance assigned to the following nominal categories: 0 = neither correct, 1 = TP correct, 2 = TA

correct, 3 = both lineups correct. An χ2 test comparing response and age found there was a significant

effect (χ2 (3, N = 186) = 9.3, p = .026, Φ = .2). Adult participants were more likely to respond correctly

to both lineups (44%), as compared to the child participants (24%).

PLEASE INSERT TABLE 1 HERE

Target Present lineups

For the TP lineups 60 % of participants correctly identified the target (correct ID), 27 % incorrectly

chose a foil from the lineup (foil ID) and 14 % incorrectly rejected the lineup saying the target was not

present. Table 2 shows the percentage of responses for both age groups for the older and younger

targets. A hierarchical loglinear analysis (HILOG) was conducted with witness age (child, adult), target

age (child, adult) and response (correct ID, foil ID, incorrect rejection) as factors. The likelihood ratio

of the model was (χ2 (3, N =186) = 2.91, p = .406), there was a significant interaction for witness age

and response (χ2 (2) = 27.06 p <.001), and for target age and response (χ

2 (2) = 15.93, p <.001).

Subsequent χ2

tests were used to follow up the interactions. The first one compared the witness age and

response and found a significant effect (χ2 (2) = 25.40, p <.001, Φ = .3). Child participants were more

likely to make a foil ID (38%) as compared to adults (14%), and adults were more likely to make an

incorrect rejection (25.6%) as compared to children (4 %), however there was little difference in

Page 13 of 33

URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/gpcl Email: user@test.demo

Psychology, Crime and Law

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

13

correct ID (60.5 % vs. 58%). The χ2

test for target age and response was also found to be significant

(χ2 (2) = 15.60, p <.001, Φ = .3). There were more correct IDs for the young target (75 %) as compared

to the older target (42.2 %), there were also more incorrect rejections for the older target (24.4%) as

compared to the younger target (4.2 %) and more foil IDs for the older target (33.3%) as compared the

younger target (20.8%).

As an additional measure the responses for lineup A (target position 4) and lineup B (target position 6)

were also analysed, to see if there was any influence of the target’s position in the lineup on

identification decision. This was also found to be non-significant (χ2 (2) = 1.33, p =.51). It was also

examined whether the order of seeing the child or adult film first or second, and then the child or adult

lineup first or second influenced accuracy, and found there were no significant effects (χ2 (2) = 1.76, p

=.4).

PLEASE INSERT TABLE 2 HERE

Target Absent Lineups

For the TA lineups 47 % of participants correctly stated the target was not present (correct rejection)

and 53 % chose a member from the lineup (false ID). Table 3 shows the percentage of participants’

responses for both age groups for the older and younger targets. A hierarchical loglinear analysis

(HILOG) was conducted with witness age (child, adult), target age (child, adult) and response (correct

Page 14 of 33

URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/gpcl Email: user@test.demo

Psychology, Crime and Law

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

14

rejection, false ID) as factors. There was a significant interaction of witness age, target age and

response (χ2 (1, N = 186) = 4.96, p = .026).

PLEASE INSERT TABLE 3 HERE

To explore the three-way interaction the data was split and separate χ2 tests were carried out on the

responses made by the child and the adult witnesses for both targets. There was a significant effect of

response for the child witnesses (χ2 (1, N = 186) = 15.49, p < .001), there were more correct rejections

for the child lineup (58.7%) as compared to the adult lineup (20.4%). However when the same analysis

was carried on the responses from adult witnesses there was no significant effect (χ2 (1, N= 186) = .54,

p = .462). An additional χ2 test was also carried out on witness age and response, it was found to be

significant (χ2 (1, N = 186) = 7.53, p = .006), as predicted adult witnesses made more overall correct

rejections than child witnesses (62 % vs. 42 %).

As an additional measure the responses for lineup A (target position 4) and lineup B (target position 6)

were also analysed, to see if there was any influence of the target’s position in the lineup on

identification decision. This was also found to be non-significant (χ2 (1) = 1.34, p =.2). The order of

seeing either the child or adult film first or second and then the child or adult lineup first or second was

also examined, again there were no significant effects (χ2 (1) = 2.01, p =.16).

Choosers versus Non choosers

Choosing as a function of target age.

Page 15 of 33

URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/gpcl Email: user@test.demo

Psychology, Crime and Law

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

15

A chooser was defined as someone who made a choice from the line-up whether it was a correct ID or

false ID, whereas a non-chooser did not choose a line-up member. To examine whether there was a

choosing bias in relation to target age, responses were coded as; did not choose anyone, chose on child

lineup, chose on adult lineup and chose on both lineups. There was a significant effect of participant

age and choosing (χ2 (3, N = 186) = 27.8, p < .001). Child participants were significantly more likely to

choose from both lineups as compared to adults (60 % vs. 21 %), and adults were significantly more

likely to choose from a child lineup as compared to the adult lineup (41 % vs. 27 %).

Choosing as a function of lineup order.

To examine whether there was a choosing bias in relation to whether the lineup was viewed first or

second, responses were coded as; did not choose on any lineup, chose on first lineup, chose on second

lineup and chose on both lineups. There was a significant effect of participant age and choosing (χ2 (3,

N = 186) = 24.9, p < .001). Child participants (28 % vs. 10 %) and adults (47.7% vs. 19.8 %) were

more likely to choose from the first lineup as compared to the second lineup.

Confidence Scores

The mean post identification confidence measures are shown on table 6. A univariate ANOVA was

performed using the post line-up confidence scores as the dependent measure, first for the TP line-ups

with participant age (child, adult), target (child, adult), and response (correct ID, foil ID, incorrect

rejection) as between-participants factors. The analysis revealed a significant interaction for response,

and participant age (F(2, 174) = 4.42, p = .013). The simple main effects for the interaction revealed

adults had higher confidence ratings for correct identifications as compared to child participants ratings

(F(1, 174) = 36.50, p < .001) and incorrect rejections (F(1, 174) = 21.38, p < .001), however only

marginally higher confidence ratings for foil identifications (F(1, 174) = 3.62, p = .059). There was

Page 16 of 33

URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/gpcl Email: user@test.demo

Psychology, Crime and Law

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

16

also a main effect of participant age (F(1, 174) = 41.92, p < .001), adults were significantly more

confident in their responses than children (4.76 vs. 3.16).There was also a main effect of response, and

confidence ratings were higher for correct identifications (5.25) as compared to foil identifications

(3.72) and incorrect rejections (2.9).

The same analysis was carried out for the post confidence ratings for the TA line-ups; however there

were no significant effects or interactions between any of the factors (all ps. >.1).

PLEASE INSERT TABLE 4. HERE

Discussion

The main aim of this study was to investigate the own age bias in child and younger adult witnesses

using an eyewitness paradigm and the current method of identification used in the UK, the video-

identification parade. We had several tentavive hypotheses that will now be addressed in turn.

Our first hypothesis was that correct identifications for adults and children would be similar and this

was found to be the case as correct identification rates for children were 58 percent and for adults they

were 60 percent. This supports previous research which has found that children can perform equally to

adults on target present lineups (Goodman & Reed, 1986; Lindsay et al., 1997; Parker & Carranza,

1989; Parker & Ryan, 1993; Pozzulo & Balfour, 2006; Pozzulo & Lindsay, 1998).

Page 17 of 33

URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/gpcl Email: user@test.demo

Psychology, Crime and Law

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

17

Our second hypothesis predicted that adults would make more correct rejections from target absent

lineups as compared to children. This was also found to be true as adults made correct rejections 62

percent of the time, whilst children only made them 42 percent of the time. These data also supports

previous research which found that children perform more poorly than adults on target absent lineups

(Beal, Schmitt & Dekle, 1995; Dekle, Beal, Elliot & Huneycutt, 1996; Lindsay et al., 1997; Parker &

Carranza, 1989; Parker & Ryan, 1993; Pozzulo & Balfour, 2006; Pozzulo & Warren, 2003).

The third hypothesis predicted that witnesses would make more correct identifications for their own

age target. This was found to be true in part, as children made more correct identifications for the child

target (73.6 %) as compared to the adult target (40.4 %), however adults did not show an own-age

advantage, conversely they made more correct identifications for the child target (76.7%) as compared

the adults target (44.2 %). The target present data from child witnesses’ supports previous research that

has found that people are generally better at recognising faces that are of a similar age (Anastasi &

Rhodes, 2005; 2006; Bartlett & Leslie, 1986; Fulton & Bartlett, 1991; Memon et al., 2003; Perfect &

Harris, 2003, Perfect & Moon, 2005; Rodin, 1987; Wright & Stroud, 2002). However the target present

data from the adult witnesses, is contrary to much of the previous research on own-age bias, is a similar

pattern to that reported by Pozzulo and Dempsey (2009). Pozzulo and Dempsey tested adult

participants and also found higher correct identification rates for the child target (56 %) as compared to

the adult target (30 %). They suggested that the reason for the reversal in own age bias was due to

adults being more likely to choose from a child lineup as compared to an adult lineup. Our data

supports this suggestion as the adults in our study were more likely to choose from a child lineup (41

%) as compared to an adult lineup (27 %), regardless of whether the target was present. This

explanation seems to be the most plausible as distinctiveness ratings reported that the child target was

not rated as being more distinctive than the adult target. Adults may be more inclined to choose from

Page 18 of 33

URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/gpcl Email: user@test.demo

Psychology, Crime and Law

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

18

the child lineup as they think the consequences for children who are caught are less than adults.

Therefore the choosing process my relate more to social processes than cognitive ones.

There is however an alternative explanation for the higher correct identification rates for the child

target and that maybe due to the child target as being seen as more unusual entering an office and

therefore the witnesses may have focused more on the target’s face, or encoded it at a deeper level.

Seeing a young adult entering an office and looking around and picking up items may not at first

appear to be a thief, however seeing a child enter an office picking up items may seem unusual and

witnesses may realise more quickly that the target is stealing. There is some evidence that events that

are seen as being unusual, or distinctive maybe remembered more accurately (Howe, Courage,

Vernescu & Hunt, 2000).

Our fourth prediction also related to the own age bias and predicted that witnesses would make more

correct rejections from their own age lineup, as compared to the other age lineup. This was found to be

true in part, children made more correct rejections from the child lineup as compared to the adult

lineup, this helps to support evidence for an own age bias, that can reduce false positive responses

(Anastasi & Rhodes, 2005). However, the adult witnesses showed no own age effect for the TA lineup

and performed equally on both, this has also been found with other eyewitness studies (Wright &

Stroud, 2002). There are a number of studies that have found no overall effect of own age bias,

however they were using young and older adult participants (Rose et al., 2002; 2005; Wilcock et al.,

2005).

Our final hypothesis predicted that children would be more likely to choose from both lineups as

compared to adults. This was found to be the case as children chose on both lineups 60 percent of the

time, whereas adults only chose on both lineups 21 percent of the time. This provides more evidence

Page 19 of 33

URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/gpcl Email: user@test.demo

Psychology, Crime and Law

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

19

that children feel compelled to pick some from a lineup, even when they have been told the person may

or may not be there. Furthermore, children may not understand the consequences of false identification.

An additional finding was that correct identifications were followed by higher confidence measures

than incorrect rejections. Our data showed that correct identifications were indeed rated with higher

confidence than foil identifications and correct rejections. The confidence scores did however indicate

that witnesses who made correct identifications for TP lineups were more confident, and this replicates

previous findings (Havard & Memon, 2009; Lindsay, et al, 1998; Memon et al., 2003; Read, 1995).

Thus, there may be situations under which confidence may be a reliable indicator of accuracy (see also

Brewer, 2006). We would endorse the recommendation made by others (Valentine, Darling and

Memon, 2006) that a clear statement of confidence is taken from the witness at the time the

identification.

Our study also found that there was an order effect for choosing from the lineup and that witnesses

were more likely to choose on the first lineup than the second lineup. Previous research by Havard and

Memon (2009) has also found the same pattern with older adult witnesses. This choosing bias could

have significant effects of overall accuracy as choosing from the first lineup, could be beneficial for TP

lineups, however not for TA lineup and then the reverse would be true for the second lineup. Further

research could explore the decision processes witnesses engage in when trying to identify multiple

culprits from several lineups.

Although witnesses were more inclined to choose from the first lineup than the second lineup, viewing

the child or adult film first and then viewing either the child or adult film had no overall influence on

response accuracy. This suggests that children and adults were attending to both films equally and

order did not influence responses. However, it could be argued that children were attended more to the

Page 20 of 33

URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/gpcl Email: user@test.demo

Psychology, Crime and Law

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

20

film with the children target and this could be due to children identifying the child as an ingroup

member and therefore focusing more on the child target, whereas the adult was seen more as an

outgroup member (Sporer, 2001) and therefore the adult may not have been processed fully (Rodin,

1987).

To conclude the current study has shown that the children in our sample elicited an own-age bias both

for target present and target absent lineups. However, our adults sample showed no own-age bias and

the adult witnesses made more correct identifications for the child target, as compared to the adult

target, this appears to be a result of an overall choosing bias for the child lineups. Own age bias along

with choosing biases when witnesses are shown more than one lineup, should be taken into

consideration when witnesses are asked to make identifications from lineups, especially when working

with child witnesses.

Page 21 of 33

URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/gpcl Email: user@test.demo

Psychology, Crime and Law

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

21

References

Anastasi, J. S. & Rhodes, M. G. (2005). An own-age bias in face recognition for children and older

adults. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review.

Anastasi, J. S., & Rhodes, M. G. (2006). Evidence for an own-age bias in face recognition. North

American Journal of Psychology, 8, 237-253.

Bäckman, L. (1991). Recognition memory across the adult life span: The role of prior knowledge.

Memory & Cognition, 19, 63-71.

Bartlett, J. C. & Leslie, J. E. (1986). Aging and memory for faces versus single views of faces. Memory

& Cognition. 14, 371-381.

Beal, C. R., Schmitt, K. L., & Dekle, D. J. (1995). Eyewitness identification of children. Effects of

absolute judgements, nonverbal response options, and event encoding. Law and Human Behavior, 19,

197-216.

Beresford, J., & Blades, M. (2006). Children’s identification of faces from lineups: The effects of

lineup presentation and instructions on accuracy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1102-1113.

Bernstein, M. J., Young, S. G., & Hugenberg, K. (2007). The Cross-Category Effect: Mere Social

Categorization is Sufficient to Elicit an Own-Group Bias in Face Recognition. Psychological Science,

8, 518-525.

Page 22 of 33

URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/gpcl Email: user@test.demo

Psychology, Crime and Law

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

22

Brewer, N. (2006). Uses and abuses of eyewitness identification confidence. Legal and Criminological

Psychology, 11, 3 – 23.

Brigham, J. C., & Malpass, R. S. (1985). The role of experience and context in the recognition effaces

of own- and other-race persons. Journal of Social Issues, 4,139-155.

Ceci, S.J., Ross D., Toglia, M. (1987) Suggestibility of children’s memory: psycholegal implications.

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 116, 38–49.

Cutler, B. L., & Fisher, R. P. (1990). Live lineups, videotaped lineups and photoarrays. Forensic

Reports, 3, 439-448

Darling, S., Valentine, T., & Memon, A. (2008). Selection of lineup foils in operational contexts.

Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 159-169.

Dasgupta, N. & Greenwald, A. G. (2001) On the malleability of automatic attitudes: Combating

automatic prejudice with images of admired and disliked individuals. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 81, 800-814.

Dekle, D. J., Beal, C. R., Elliot, R., & Huneycutt, D. (1996). Children as witnesses: A comparison of

lineup versus showup identification methods. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, 1-12.

Fulton, A. & Bartlett, J. C, (1991). Young and old faces in young and old heads: The factor of age in

face recognitions. Psychology and Aging, 6, 623-630

Page 23 of 33

URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/gpcl Email: user@test.demo

Psychology, Crime and Law

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

23

Goodman, G. S., & Reed, R. S. (1986). Age differences in eyewitness testimony. Law and Human

Behavior, 10, 317-332.

Harrison, V. & Hole, G.J. (2009). Evidence for the contact-based explanation of the own-age bias in

face recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 264-269.

Hancock, K.J., & Rhodes, G. (2008) Contact, configural coding and the other-race effect in face

recognition, British Journal of Psychology, 99, 45-56.

Havard, C. & Memon, A. (2009). The influence of face age on identification from a video line-up: A

comparison between older and younger adults, Memory, 17, 847-859.

Havard, C., Memon, A., Clifford, B. & Gabbert, F. (2010). A comparison of video and static photo

lineups with child and adolescent witnesses. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24,1209-1221.

Howe, M.L., Courage, M.L., Vernescu, R., Hunt, M. (2000). Developmental Psychology, 6, 778-792.

Hugenberg, K., Young, S.G., Bernstein, M.J., & Sacco, D.F. (in press). The catergorization-

Individuation Model: Anintergrative account of the other race recognition deficit. Psychological

Science.

Kuefner, D., Macchi Cassia, V., Picozzi M., & Bricolo, E. (2008). Do all kids look alike? Evidence for

an other-age effect in adults. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and

Performance, 34, 807–820.

Page 24 of 33

URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/gpcl Email: user@test.demo

Psychology, Crime and Law

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

24

Kuefer, D., Cassia, V.M., Vescovo, E. & Picozzi M. (2010). Natural experience acquired in

adulthood enhances holistic processing of other-age faces. Visual Cognition, 18, 11-25.

Lindsay, R. C. L., Pozzulo, J. D., Craig, W., Lee., K., & Corber, S. (1997). Simultaneous lineups,

sequential lineups & showups: Eyewitness identification decisions of adults and children. Law &

Human Behavior, 21, 391-404.

Lord Advocates’ guidelines - The conduct of visual identification procedures (2007). Retrieved from

the web on 05.10.07. http://www.copfs.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/13547/0000269.pdf

Macchi Cassia, V., Picozzi, M., Kuefer, D. & Casati, M. (2009). Why mix-ups don’t happen in the

nursery: Evidence for an experience-based interpretation of the other age effect. The Quarterly Journal

of Experimental Psychology, 62, 1099-1107.

Meissner, C. A., & Brigham, J. C. (2001). Thirty years of investigating the other-race effect in

memory for faces: A meta-analytic review. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7, 3–35.

Memon, A. & Bartlett, J.C. (2002) The effects of verbalisation on face recognition in younger and

older adults. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 16, 635-650.

Memon, A., Bartlett, J.C., Rose, R. & Gray, C. (2003). The aging eyewitness: The effects of face-age

and delay upon younger and older observers. Journal of Gerontology, 58, 338-345.

Memon, A., Havard, C., Clifford, B., Gabbert, F., & Watt, M. (2011). A field evaluation of the VIPER

system: A new technique for eliciting eyewitness identification evidence. Psychology, Crime, & Law,

First published on: 01 February 2011 (iFirst) DOI: 10.1080/10683160903524333

Page 25 of 33

URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/gpcl Email: user@test.demo

Psychology, Crime and Law

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

25

Memon, A., Hope, L., Bartlett, J., & Bull, R. (2002). Eyewitness recognition errors: The effects of

mugshot viewing and choosing in young and old adults. Memory and Cognition, 30, 1219-1227.

Parker, J. F., & Carranza, L. E. (1989). Eyewitness testimony of children in target-present and target

absent line-ups. Law of Human Behavior, 13, 133-149.

Parker, J. F., & Ryan, V. (1993). An attempt to reduce guessing behavior in children's and adults'

eyewitness identification. Law & Human Behavior, 17, 11-26.

Perfect, T. J., & Harris, L. J. (2003). Adult age differences in unconscious

transference: Source confusion or identity blending? Memory & Cognition, 31, 570-580.

Perfect, T. J., & Moon, H. (2005). The own-age effect in face recognition. In J. Duncan, L. Phillips, &

P. McLeod (Eds.), Measuring the mind: Speed, control, and age (pp. 317-340). Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Pike, G., Brace N. & Kynan, S. (2002). The visual identification of suspects: procedures and practice.

The visual identification of suspects: Procedures and Practice. A Publication of the Policing and

Reducing Crime Unit, Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate.

Police and Criminal Evidence Act (1984) Codes of Practice (2008). Retrieved from the web on

01/04/09: http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/operational-policing/powers-pace-codes/pace-code-intro/

Page 26 of 33

URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/gpcl Email: user@test.demo

Psychology, Crime and Law

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

26

Pozzulo J. D., & Balfour, J. (2006). Children’s and adults eye witness identification accuracy when a

culprit changes his appearance: Comparing simultaneous and elimination line up procedures. Legal and

Criminal Psychology, 11, 25-34.

Pozzulo, J.D., & Dempsey, J. (2006). Biased lineup instructions: Examining the effect of pressure on

children's and adults' eyewitness identification accuracy. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 6,

1381-1394.

Pozzulo, J.D., & Dempsey, J. (2009). Could target age explain identification accuracy differences

between child and adult eyewitnesses? Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 16, S137-S144

Pozzulo, J.D., & Lindsay, R. (1998). Identification accuracy of children versus adults: A meta-analysis,

Law & Human Behavior, 549- 570.

Pozzulo, J. D., & Lindsay, R. (1999) Elimination lineups: An improved identification procedure for

child eyewitnesses. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 167-176.

Pozzulo, J. D., & Warren, K. L. (2003). Descriptors and identifications of strangers by youth and adults

eye witnesses. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 3-5. 323.

Read, J. D. (1995). The availability heuristic in person identification- the sometimes misleading

consequences of enhanced contextual information. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 9, 91-121.

Rodin, M. J. (1987). Who is memorable to whom: A study of cognitive disregard. Social Cognition, 5,

144-165.

Page 27 of 33

URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/gpcl Email: user@test.demo

Psychology, Crime and Law

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

27

Rose, R. A., Bull, R., & Vrij, A. (2005) Non-biased lineup instructions do matter - A problem for older

witnesses, Psychology, Crime, and Law, 11, 147-159.

Rose, R. A., Bull, R., & Vrij, A. (2003) Enhancing older witnesses' identification performance: Context

reinstatement is not the answer, The Canadian Journal of Police and Security Services, 1, 173-184.

Searcy, J.H., Bartlett, J. C. & Memon, A. (2000) Relationship of availability, lineup conditions and

individual differences to false identification by young and older eyewitnesses. Legal and

Criminological Psychology, 5, 219-36

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, 207-14.

Slone, A. E., Brigham, J.C. & Meissner, C.A. (2000). Social and cognitive factors affecting the own-

race bias in Whites, Basic & Applied Social Psychology , 22, 71-84.

Sporer, S. L. (2001). Recognizing faces of other ethnic groups: An integration of theories. Psychology,

Public Policy, & Law, 7, 36-97.

Valentine, T., Darling, S., Memon, A. (2006). How can psychological science enhance the

effectiveness of identification procedures? An international comparison. Public Interest Law Reporter,

11, 21-39.

Page 28 of 33

URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/gpcl Email: user@test.demo

Psychology, Crime and Law

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

28

Wilcock, R .A., Bull, R., & Vrij, A (2005) Aiding the performance of older eyewitnesses: Enhanced

non-biased lineup instructions and lineup presentation, Psychiatry, Psychology, and Law, 12, 129-140

Wright, D. B., & Stroud, J. S. (2002). Age differences in lineup identification accuracy: People are

better with their own age. Law & Human Behavior, 26, 641-654.

Page 29 of 33

URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/gpcl Email: user@test.demo

Psychology, Crime and Law

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

1

Table 1. Percentage correct according to whether the lineup was TP or TA (frequencies are in

parentheses).

Age group Both wrong TP correct TA correct Both correct

Child 28 (28) 35( 35) 13 (13) 24 (24)

Adult 22 (19) 21 (18) 13 (11) 44 (38)

Page 30 of 33

URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/gpcl Email: user@test.demo

Psychology, Crime and Law

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

2

Table 2. The percentage of correct responses for Target present lineups (frequencies are in parentheses)

Child target Adult target

Age

group Correct ID Foil ID Incorrect rejection Correct ID Foil ID Incorrect rejection

Child 73.6 (37) 24.5 (12) 1.9 (1) 40.4 (12) 53.2 (25) 6.4(3)

Adult 76.7 (33) 16.3 (7) 7 (3) 44.2(19) 11.6(5) 44.2(19)

Page 31 of 33

URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/gpcl Email: user@test.demo

Psychology, Crime and Law

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

3

Table 3. The percentage of responses for target present lineups (frequencies are in parentheses)

Child target Adult target Age group

correct rejection false ID correct rejection false ID

Child 58.7 (27) 41.3 (23) 20.4 (10) 79.6 (40)

Adult 53.5 (23) 46.5 (20) 62.8 (27) 37.2 (16)

Page 32 of 33

URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/gpcl Email: user@test.demo

Psychology, Crime and Law

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

4

Table 4. Mean post lineup confidence (1-5 scale) standard deviations are in parentheses.

Age group Target present lineup Target absent lineup

Correct ID Foil ID Incorrect rejection Correct rejection False ID

Child 4.6 (.49) 3.38 (1.27) 1.5 (0.5) 4.26 (1.99) 4.83 (1.95)

Adult 5.9 (1.04) 4.07 (1.38) 4.1 (1.7) 4.66 (1.83) 4.4 (1.16)

Page 33 of 33

URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/gpcl Email: user@test.demo

Psychology, Crime and Law

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960