Police lineups are performed everyday, but do the right suspects always get picked? Witnesses rely their memories involving the suspect, like what was their eye color, hair color, how tall or short where they, how much they weigh, and was it a male or female. Sometimes these memories do not always benefit the witness during their decision making.
A police lineup is going to be made of one suspect, and many others not involved in the case. There are three different types of lineups used in this study replication, pixelation and block lineups. The hypotheses researchers came up with are first, if the suspect does not stand out, witnesses should be less willing to identify the suspect; second, the distinctive feature appears either on every lineup …show more content…
The positioning of the culprit was selected randomly as well. In do-nothing target-absent lineups, one foil with the culprit’s distinctive feature was presented among five other foils (Colloff et al., 2016, p. 6). In replication, pixilation, and block target-absent lineups, six foils were randomly selected; there was no designated innocent suspect (Colloff et al., 2016, p. 6). Since the lineups were randomly generated, it helped researched avoid bias. Once subjects were shown lineups, they were asked to choose who they thought the culprit was and indicate their level of confidence with the Likert-type scale. After they gave their answer, they were given attention-check questions, along with demographic …show more content…
The ROC analysis used in this study, determine a person’s ability to pick between the guilty and innocent, while setting aside choices of known-to-be innocent foils (Colloff et al., 2016, p. 7). The calculations to determine the data, was done differently for unfair and fare lineups of innocent suspects. In the unfair lineups or do-nothings, included subjects making choices of innocent suspects when they identified the single lineup member with the distinctive feature (Colloff et al., 2016, p. 7). By using the estimation method in replication, pixilation, and block lineups (fair lineups), provided a conservative test of how well these techniques enhanced witness identification performance compared with the (unfair) do-nothing lineups (Colloff et al., 2016, p. 7). The graph below displays that there was a rightward shift, which shows there was an increase in both correct and false identifications (Colloff et al., 2016, p. 8). That means the subjects’ likelihood to identify the suspect increased in the do-nothing lineups compared to the replication, pixilation, and block lineups, but do-nothing lineups made it more difficult for subjects to distinguish between innocent and guilty suspects (Colloff et at., 2016, p.
A police lineup is going to be made of one suspect, and many others not involved in the case. There are three different types of lineups used in this study replication, pixelation and block lineups. The hypotheses researchers came up with are first, if the suspect does not stand out, witnesses should be less willing to identify the suspect; second, the distinctive feature appears either on every lineup …show more content…
The positioning of the culprit was selected randomly as well. In do-nothing target-absent lineups, one foil with the culprit’s distinctive feature was presented among five other foils (Colloff et al., 2016, p. 6). In replication, pixilation, and block target-absent lineups, six foils were randomly selected; there was no designated innocent suspect (Colloff et al., 2016, p. 6). Since the lineups were randomly generated, it helped researched avoid bias. Once subjects were shown lineups, they were asked to choose who they thought the culprit was and indicate their level of confidence with the Likert-type scale. After they gave their answer, they were given attention-check questions, along with demographic …show more content…
The ROC analysis used in this study, determine a person’s ability to pick between the guilty and innocent, while setting aside choices of known-to-be innocent foils (Colloff et al., 2016, p. 7). The calculations to determine the data, was done differently for unfair and fare lineups of innocent suspects. In the unfair lineups or do-nothings, included subjects making choices of innocent suspects when they identified the single lineup member with the distinctive feature (Colloff et al., 2016, p. 7). By using the estimation method in replication, pixilation, and block lineups (fair lineups), provided a conservative test of how well these techniques enhanced witness identification performance compared with the (unfair) do-nothing lineups (Colloff et al., 2016, p. 7). The graph below displays that there was a rightward shift, which shows there was an increase in both correct and false identifications (Colloff et al., 2016, p. 8). That means the subjects’ likelihood to identify the suspect increased in the do-nothing lineups compared to the replication, pixilation, and block lineups, but do-nothing lineups made it more difficult for subjects to distinguish between innocent and guilty suspects (Colloff et at., 2016, p.