Do They All Look Alike? An Exploration of Decision-Making Strategies in Cross-Race Facial Identifications

Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, Apr 2004 by Smith, Steven M, Stinson, Veronica, Prosser, Matthew A

Abstract

Although hundreds of studies have demonstrated that eyewitness testimony is error-prone, eyewitness evidence is often the strongest or only evidence used by juries when coming to a verdict. One potential cause of error occurs when eyewitnesses and the suspect are of different races. Findings regarding the cross-race effect are generally consistent, but causes for the effect are not well understood. This research explores decision-making strategies that may differentiate lineup identifications in cross-race versus same-race situations. Data were collected from 161 Caucasian subjects engaged in either a crossrace or same-race facial recognition task, similar to that used in criminal investigations. Although few differences were found between same and cross-race decision strategies, a number of other effects were found, including the impact of race on clarity of memory, and pre- and postdecision confidence. We discuss the implications for these data and propose directions for future research.

Resume

MOme si des centaines d'etudes ont demontre que le temoignage de temoin oculaire est sujet a l'erreur, la preuve d'un temoin oculaire est souvent la plus forte ou la seule qui est retenue par les jurys lorsqu'ils rendent un verdict. Une cause potentielle d'erreur se produit lorsque les temoins oculaires et le suspect sont de race differente. Les conclusions concernant l'effet transracial sont generalement uniformes, mais les causes de l'effet ne sont pas bien comprises. Cette recherche examine les strategies de prise de decisions qui peuvent differencier l'identification des suspects dans des situations transraciales par opposition e des suspects de meme race. Les donnees ont ete recueillies aupres de 161 sujets caucasiens engages soit dans une tache de reconnaissance faciale transraciale ou de meme race, semblable a celle utilisee dans les enquetes criminelles. Bien que peu de diffeences n'aient ete trouvees entre les strategies de decision concernant les sujets de meme race et transracial, un certain nombre d'autres effets ont ete trouvetes, notamment l'incidence de la race sur la clarte de la memoire et la confiance avant et apres la decision. Nous decrivons la signification de ces donnees et proposons des axes de recherche future.

On December 23, 1981, Tom Sophonow was visiting his sister in Winnipeg. Although his car troubles kept him in the city longer than he intended, he was able to return home to Vancouver later that evening. Little did he know that this innocent visit to Winnipeg would result in his spending almost 4 years in prison for the murder of a coffee shop clerk. Although there was no physical evidence linking Sophonow to the crime, eyewitness testimony led to his conviction. It took 15 years before the Winnipeg Police and a Manitoba Board of Inquiry pronounced Sophonow innocent (Chandler, 2002).

More innocent citizens are wrongfully tried and convicted on the basis of eyewitness evidence in Great Britain and North America than by any other factor within the legal system (Brandon & Davies, 1973; Connors, Lundregan, Miller, & McEwan, 1996; Huff, Ratner, & Sagarian, 1986). Nevertheless, eyewitness testimony is held in greater regard by juries, prosecutors, and others in the judicial system than any other type of evidence. It is estimated that eyewitness evidence plays a role in over 75,000 cases per year in North America (Goldstein, Chance, & Schneller, 1989).

Although actual rates of eyewitness errors are unknown, of 8,000 suspects arrested for sexual assault, over 2,000 were excluded by DNA testing. Typically, these arrests were made based (at least in part) on eyewitness identification. Were it not for the DNA testing, a large percentage of these individuals would probably have been convicted (Neufeld & Scheck, 1996). Further, DNA sequencing contributed to the exoneration of over 100 people on death row in the United States (Curtis, 2002; Scheck, Neufeld, & Dwyer, 2001). In 80-90% of these cases, eyewitnesses were a key factor in the conviction.

Often, eyewitness accounts are the primary evidence used by prosecutors and are the most soughtafter form of evidence during the investigative process (Brigham & WolfsKeil, 1983; Lindsay, Wells, & Rumpel, 1991). Jurors often regard eyewitness testimony as the most useful evidence in a trial (Brigham & WolfsKeil; Lindsay et al, 1991), and they often use the eyewitness' self-report of confidence to bolster their belief in their subsequent verdict. Although eyewitness confidence is often higher by the time of the trial (see Saad & Smith, 2001; Wells & Bradfield, 1998), it is an unreliable predictor of lineup identification accuracy (Smith, Lindsay, & Pryke, 2000; Sporer, Penrod, Read, & Culter, 1995).

Another factor that can lead to errors in eyewitness identification is cross-race situations. When the eyewitness is of a different race than the suspect, accuracy rates are lower than in same-race identifications (Brigham, 1981). Statistics are not collected concerning the frequency of cross-race lineups, but some inferences can be made. For example, the U.S. Justice Department states that 22% of sexual assaults involve black perpetrators and white victims (Scheck et al., 2001). Within the eyewitness literature relatively little attention has been paid to the cause of the cross-race effect (see Ng & Lindsay, 1994; Smith, Lindsay, Pryke, & Dysart, 2001). Nevertheless, the interaction between race and identification accuracy is well established (Brigham & Barkowitz, 1978; Chance, Goldstein, & McBride, 1975; Cross, Cross, & Daly, 1971; Malpass, Lavigueur, & Weldon, 1973). Meta-analyses demonstrate that Blacks and Whites are generally better at identifying individuals from their own race rather than those from another race (Bothwell, Bringham, & Malpass, 1989; Shapiro & Penrod, 1986). Ng and Lindsay reported similar findings with Oriental participants. Yet variables that allow researchers to postdiet accuracy in same-race paradigms, such as decision time and confidence, are not predictive in crossrace situations (Smith et al., 2001).