Pozzulo et al. (line-ups)

Pozzulo et al. (2012) is a laboratory study of eyewitness identification that asked why children make more false identifications than adults in police lineups.

It found that children recognized familiar cartoon faces almost perfectly but often failed to reject lineups where the target was absent.

The pattern points to social pressure, not weak memory. The study is a core study in the cognitive approach on the AICE Psychology syllabus.

Psychology Being Investigated

Eyewitness Testimony

Eyewitness testimony is evidence given by a person who has witnessed a crime.

For example, a witness might be asked to identify a suspect from a lineup or to describe what they saw during a crime.

Police use this evidence to catch perpetrators.

The accuracy of eyewitness testimony is therefore extremely important, as it can have a significant impact on whether a person is convicted or acquitted.

Courts weigh identification evidence heavily. The Devlin Committee (1973–1976) reviewed over 2,000 English and Welsh cases involving identification parades.

Suspects were picked out in 45% of cases, and 82% of those prosecuted after being picked out were convicted (Devlin, 1976). In 347 cases where eyewitness testimony was the only evidence, 74% still ended in conviction.

False Positive Responses

Pozzulo et al. focused on a specific aspect of eyewitness testimony called false positive responses.

A false positive response occurs when an eyewitness incorrectly identifies a person as the perpetrator of a crime, even though the actual perpetrator is not present in the lineup.

Research has shown that children are more susceptible to making false positive identifications than adults.

A lineup can take two forms. In a target-present lineup, the actual perpetrator is among the photographs, and the correct response is to pick them out (a correct identification).

In a target-absent lineup, a similar-looking person replaces the perpetrator, and the correct response is to say “not there” (a correct rejection). False positives are the most dangerous error because they place an innocent person under suspicion.

Social and Cognitive Factors

The researchers wanted to see how social pressures versus a child’s cognitive ability affect their likelihood of giving a false positive.

• Social Factors: Children may feel pressure from authority figures, such as police officers, to choose someone from a lineup, even if they are unsure. They may also be more likely to comply with authority figures and fear getting into trouble if they don’t provide an answer.
  • Subtle cues from interviewers, such as their clothing or the way they phrase questions, can influence children’s responses.
• Cognitive Factors: Children’s cognitive abilities (e.g., memory) are still developing, which may make them more susceptible to suggestion and less able to accurately recall and recognize faces.

Background 

Pozzulo’s study investigates how children’s developing memory and cognitive abilities, in comparison to those of adults, affect their accuracy in eyewitness identification tasks, particularly in legal contexts.

The study explores age-related differences in memory accuracy and susceptibility to suggestion. Both are crucial to eyewitness testimony.

It examines children’s responses in both target-present and target-absent lineups, considering the impact of social cues and authority expectations.

By comparing children to adults, the study aims to determine when children’s eyewitness abilities become similar to those of adults and identify factors that might influence these abilities.

Why Use Cartoon Characters?

In an ordinary lineup task, two explanations for a child’s error are confounded. A child who picks a foil might have a weak memory of the face. Or the child might remember perfectly well that the culprit is absent but feel unable to say so.

Pozzulo et al. broke this confound with familiarity.

If children see popular cartoon characters they already know well, the memory demands of the task shrink to almost nothing. Any remaining failure to reject a target-absent lineup is then hard to blame on weak face memory.

That leaves social demands as the likely cause. Wells and Luus (1990) described a police lineup as an experiment conducted on the witness. Instructions, structure and administrator behavior can all shape the outcome.

Comparing familiar cartoons with unfamiliar human faces therefore separates what children cannot do from what they do not feel free to do.

Aims

• To investigate the role of social and cognitive factors in children’s identification accuracy in lineups.
• To assess whether children are less accurate and more prone to false positives than adults.

The guiding prediction followed from these aims. If children’s errors were mainly cognitive, they should perform poorly on unfamiliar faces but well on familiar ones, in both lineup types.

If the errors were mainly social, children should fail to reject target-absent lineups even for faces they clearly know (Pozzulo et al., 2012).

Method

Sample

• Children: A total of 59 children between the ages of 4 and 7 years old (with an average age of 4.98 years) participated in the study. This group included 21 females and 38 males. The children were recruited from pre-kindergarten and kindergarten classes in three private schools located in Eastern Ontario, Canada.
• Adults: The adult participant group consisted of 53 individuals between the ages of 17 and 30 (with an average age of 20.5 years). This group included 36 females and 17 males. All adult participants were recruited from an introductory psychology participant pool at a university in Eastern Ontario, Canada.

Design

Pozzulo et al. conducted a well-controlled laboratory experiment to investigate children’s eyewitness identification abilities.

The study employed a mixed factorial design, which combines a between-subjects variable (age group) with repeated-measures variables (target type and lineup type).

Each participant therefore acted as their own control for face-recognition ability across lineup types, which removes participant variables from that comparison. The three independent variables were:

Independent variables

• Age Group: This naturally occurring independent variable divided participants into two groups: young children (aged 4 to 7) and adults (aged 17 to 30). This variable employed an independent measures design as participants could only belong to one age group.
• Target Type: This variable was manipulated by presenting participants with either cartoon characters or human faces. The use of both familiar (Dora the Explorer and Go Diego Go) and unfamiliar targets (two Caucasian university students) allowed the researchers to examine the influence of familiarity on identification accuracy.
• Lineup Type: Participants were shown either target-present lineups (where the target was included in the lineup photos) or target-absent lineups (where the target was replaced with a similar-looking individual). This manipulation enabled the researchers to assess both correct identifications and correct rejections.

Dependent variables

The study’s primary dependent variable was the participants’ accuracy in identifying or rejecting the target. Accuracy was measured as the mean rate of correct identifications in target-present lineups and the mean rate of correct rejections in target-absent lineups. Both rates ran from 0 to 1.

• Correct Identifications: This measure was used in target-present lineups, where the actual target from the video clip was included among the lineup photos. A correct identification occurred when the participant accurately selected the target from the lineup.
  • The researchers calculated mean correct identification rates to account for potential variations in difficulty across different target faces.
• Correct Rejections: This measure was used in target-absent lineups, where the actual target was not present, and a similar-looking foil replaced them. A correct rejection occurred when the participant accurately indicated that the target they had seen in the video was not present in the lineup.
  • The researchers calculated mean correct rejection rates for each target type (human and cartoon) across both age groups.

Procedure

1. Lineup Instructions: Before each lineup, participants were informed that the person or cartoon from the video might not be present. Children were instructed to point to the photo if they saw the person/cartoon from the video, and to point to a designated box (containing a silhouette) if they did not see the target. Adults indicated their choice by marking a matching sheet instead of pointing.
2. Watching Video Clips: Both age groups were shown a series of four six-second video clips. Two of the video clips featured Caucasian university students (one male and one female) completing everyday tasks, such as brushing hair or putting on a coat. The other two clips featured the cartoon characters Dora the Explorer and Go Diego Go engaged in similar mundane activities.
   • Close-up Shots: Each video clip included a two- to three-second close-up shot of the target’s face, ensuring that participants had a clear view of the individual’s facial features.
3. Filler Task: After each video, participants were asked to recall details about the character they had just seen, such as “What did the cartoon character/person look like?”
   • This recall task served as a filler to allow some time to pass between the video exposure and the lineup presentation, reducing the possibility of immediate recall influencing their choices.
   • Children answered this recall task verbally, and adults completed it in writing.
4. Lineup Presentation: Following the filler recall task, participants were shown a lineup of four photos on a laptop screen. They were then asked to identify the character they had seen in the video clip, if present, or to indicate if the target was absent.
   • Each target (human or cartoon) was presented in a lineup using a simultaneous procedure, where all four photographs are presented at the same time.
   • The lineups themselves consisted of four black-and-white photos displayed on a laptop screen. In target-present lineups, one photo showed the actual target while three showed carefully selected foils, the non-target photographs. Target-absent lineups contained four foils.
   • The selection of foils followed rigorous criteria: they needed to match the target’s general facial structure, hair length, and color. To eliminate potentially confounding factors, all photos were cropped to show only the face, neck, and upper shoulders.
   • For cartoon lineups, foils were specifically chosen to focus on facial features while minimizing the influence of clothing or background details.
   • Adults indicated their choice by marking a matching sheet and children by pointing at the laptop screen.

Results

Quantitative Findings

• Correct Identification Rates for Human Faces: Children had an average correct identification rate of 0.23 for human faces, while adults had a significantly higher rate of 0.66. This difference was statistically significant.
• Correct Identification Rates for Cartoon Faces: Both children and adults demonstrated high accuracy in identifying cartoon faces. Children achieved an average correct identification rate of 0.99, and adults had a rate of 0.95. This difference was not statistically significant.
• Comparison Between Human and Cartoon Faces: The study found that both children and adults were significantly more accurate at identifying cartoon faces compared to human faces.
• Correct Rejection Rates Human Faces: Children’s correct rejection rate for human faces was 0.45, while adults had a higher rate of 0.70. This difference was statistically significant.
• Correct Rejection Rates Cartoon Faces: Children’s correct rejection rate for cartoon faces was 0.74, compared to adults’ higher rate of 0.94. This difference was statistically significant.

Interpreting the Results

Each age comparison used a chi-square test on counts of correct and incorrect responses, because every trial had a categorical outcome.

Lineup type	Target	Children	Adults	Chi-square test
Target-present	Human	.23	.66	χ²(1, N = 168) = 18.83, p = .001
Target-present	Cartoon	.99	.95	χ²(1, N = 110) = 0.39, p = .53 (not significant)
Target-absent	Human	.45	.70	χ²(1, N = 112) = 5.70, p = .02
Target-absent	Cartoon	.74	.94	χ²(1, N = 114) = 7.66, p = .01

The cartoon target-absent result matters most. A child who picks Dora out of a lineup 99 times in 100 clearly knows what she looks like. Yet the same children chose a foil in about a quarter of the lineups where Dora was missing.

That error cannot be a memory failure. Something about the situation, not the memory, is producing the false positive.

Qualitative Findings

In addition to the quantitative results, the study also collected qualitative data through filler task descriptions.

Participants described everything they could remember about each clip.

The primary open-ended question was, “What did the cartoon character/person look like?” followed by a probing question, “Do you remember anything else?”

Children who did not respond to the first probing question were asked a second, slightly modified version: “Do you remember anything from the video?”

Conclusion

• Cognitive Factors: Both children and adults were significantly more accurate at identifying cartoon faces compared to unfamiliar human faces. This finding indicates that familiarity with a target enhances recognition and recall, impacting identification accuracy. Children’s near-perfect identification of popular cartoon characters like Dora the Explorer and Diego underscores the robustness of their memory for familiar stimuli.
• Social Factors: Despite their strong memory for familiar characters, children exhibited considerably lower correct rejection rates compared to adults, even for cartoon faces. This suggests that their higher false-positive rates in target-absent scenarios might stem from social pressures rather than cognitive limitations. Children may feel compelled to select a face from a lineup, even when uncertain, due to perceived expectations from authority figures or a desire to please, increasing the likelihood of inaccurate identification.
• Developmental Differences: The study reveals key developmental differences between children and adults in eyewitness identification accuracy. Children consistently demonstrated lower correct rejection rates for both human and cartoon faces compared to adults, indicating a greater susceptibility to making identification errors in target-absent lineups.
• Implications for Legal Practices: The study advocates for a cautious approach to children’s testimony, especially in target-absent lineups, and emphasizes the importance of implementing procedures that minimize social pressure and promote reliable identification.
  • Law enforcement agencies and legal practitioners should be trained to recognize the specific challenges associated with child witnesses and implement appropriate protocols to ensure the reliability of their testimony.

Strengths

1. Strong Control of Variables

• Standardized Procedures: The study implemented rigorous controls to ensure procedural standardization and minimize extraneous variables. Key aspects of the procedure, including video clip duration (6 seconds with a 2-3 second close-up of the target’s face), photo array presentation, and instructions, were kept consistent for all participants. This standardization enhanced the reliability of the study by minimizing the influence of procedural inconsistencies on the results.
• Carefully Selected Foils: The researchers meticulously selected foils (incorrect lineup options) based on their similarity in appearance to the targets, using three independent raters to ensure consistency. The foils were carefully chosen to resemble the target in terms of general facial structure, hair length, and color to make the identification task more challenging and minimize the chances of random guessing.
• Control for Target-Specific Peculiarities: The researchers calculated mean correct identification rates for each target separately, controlling for any unique characteristics of individual targets that might have influenced identification. This approach strengthened the internal validity of the study, meaning the results reflect the variables manipulated rather than confounding factors. The findings showed general patterns of identification accuracy, not quirks of individual targets.

2. Counterbalancing and Randomization

• Randomized Target Positioning: The position of the target (or its replacement in target-absent lineups) within the photo array was randomized for each participant. This randomization minimized the potential for order effects, where participants might be more likely to select options presented in specific positions.
• Varied Presentation Order: The order of the four video clips was randomized for each participant. This counterbalancing reduced the potential for any specific sequence of stimuli to influence responses, further strengthening the internal validity of the study.

3. Consideration of Participants’ Comfort and Well-being

• Child-Friendly Environment: The researchers introduced themselves as a university group working on a project about TV shows and computer games, and did crafts with each child before the task. They monitored children for fatigue, anxiety and stress. Because an administrator’s uniform can influence children’s choices (Lowenstein et al., 2010), they wore professional-casual clothing instead.
• Right to Withdraw: Children were told they could withdraw at any time without negative consequences, so they could take part voluntarily and without coercion.

4. Mixed-Methods Approach

• Quantitative and Qualitative Data: The study incorporated both quantitative (identification/rejection rates) and qualitative data (free recall descriptions). This mixed-methods approach provided a more comprehensive understanding of the factors influencing eyewitness identification.
• While the quantitative data allowed for statistical comparisons and objective assessments of accuracy, the qualitative data offered insights into participants’ thought processes and attentional focus during the task.

5. Addressing the Social Demands of Lineups

• Explicit Instructions Regarding Rejection: The study explicitly informed children that the target might not be present in the lineup, and they were given the option of selecting a silhouette to indicate rejection. This clear instruction aimed to reduce the potential pressure children might feel to select a face even when unsure, addressing the social demands inherent in lineup tasks.

Weaknesses

1. Limited Age Range and Generalizability

• Restricted Age Group: The study tested only children aged 4 to 7, so its findings may not generalize to other ages. Memory, suggestibility and social compliance all change across childhood. Younger children might be even more compliant, while older children and adolescents have more developed cognitive abilities and social awareness.
• Homogeneous Sample: The children came from three private schools in Eastern Ontario, Canada, and may differ from the wider population in socioeconomic background, education and culture. These factors could affect their social compliance and media exposure, limiting generalizability to other children. The adults were an opportunity sample from an introductory psychology participant pool.

2. Artificiality of the Experimental Setting and Ecological Validity

• Laboratory Setting: The study was conducted in a controlled laboratory environment, which may not accurately reflect the complexities and stressors of real-world eyewitness situations. The artificiality of the setting could have influenced participants’ responses, as the controlled environment might not evoke the same emotional responses, attentional focus, and memory encoding processes that occur during actual criminal events.
• Simplified Stimuli: The study utilized video clips and photo arrays to present targets and foils. This simplified approach might not adequately capture the dynamic and multifaceted nature of real-world eyewitness encounters, where factors such as lighting, distance, movement, and distractions can significantly impact perception and memory. The use of still images might have oversimplified the identification task. This limited the study’s ecological validity, meaning how well its findings generalize to real-world settings.
• Unrealistic Nature of Targets: Real eyewitness targets are almost always unfamiliar people, so children’s near-perfect recognition of Dora and Diego may overestimate their identification ability in real cases. Cartoon faces are also simplified, high-distinctiveness stimuli. A familiar cartoon therefore differs from a familiar human face in more than familiarity, which limits ecological validity.

3. Potential for Demand Characteristics

• Influence of Authority Figures: Despite efforts to create a child-friendly atmosphere, the presence of adult researchers as authority figures could have inadvertently influenced children’s responses. Children are generally sensitive to adult expectations and might have felt pressure to provide answers that they perceived as desired by the researchers, even if unsure. This potential for demand characteristics could have contributed to their higher false-positive rates, especially in target-absent lineups.
• Repeated Measures Design: The study employed a repeated measures design where participants completed identification tasks for both cartoon and human targets, as well as target-present and target-absent lineups. This design, while controlling for individual differences, could have introduced fatigue effects, potentially impacting participants’ attention and performance, especially for children who might have shorter attention spans. Fatigue could have led to less careful scrutiny of the lineups and increased reliance on guessing, influencing the accuracy of their responses.

4. Limitations in Measuring Social Factors

• Indirect Assessment of Social Pressure: The study inferred social pressure from children’s errors, particularly higher false-positive rates in target-absent lineups. It did not directly measure or manipulate pressure, so its role is not conclusively established. Future research could observe children’s behavior or ask about their perceived expectations and motivations, to provide more concrete evidence of its impact.

A cognitive alternative is not fully excluded either. Source-monitoring errors, such as unconscious transference, would produce the same signature of intact recognition and failed rejection (Johnson et al., 1993; Ross et al., 1994).

Without a direct measure of felt compliance, some false positives may be memory-attribution errors rather than choices to comply.

5. Minor Procedural Inconsistencies

• Filler Task: The filler task was not fully standardized. Some participants were asked two questions and others three, depending on how much they volunteered.
• Understanding of Instructions: Identical instructions cannot guarantee identical understanding across a 4-year-old and a 20-year-old.

Contemporary Research

Research since 2015 has replicated the asymmetry Pozzulo et al. reported and tested how widely it applies. It has also searched for lineup formats that protect children from the false-positive risk it creates.

How Far Does the Asymmetry Extend?

Fitzgerald and Price (2015) ran a meta-analysis, which statistically combines the results of many studies.

Older adults’ deficits arise where eagerness to please an authority figure is a far less obvious explanation. That suggests the social account may need a life-span-wide analogue rather than staying a purely developmental story.

Which Procedure Best Protects Child Witnesses?

Later research has tested lineup formats built around the social-pressure diagnosis. Thompson et al. (2020) tested an elimination-with-wildcard procedure with preschoolers. It combines the elimination lineup’s two judgments with an explicit “not pictured” option at the final decision.

The combined format performed best. It gave the highest correct rejection rates in target-absent lineups, ahead of the original study’s simultaneous procedure (Thompson et al., 2020).

More than one exit route from the pressure to choose seems to cut false positives further in the youngest witnesses.

A direct comparison in young adults points the same way. Pozzulo et al. (2016) compared simultaneous, sequential, elimination and wildcard lineups.

Elimination produced a significantly higher correct rejection rate than the wildcard and simultaneous formats, with no loss of correct identifications when the culprit was present. The procedural lever works across ages.

Read together, this work treats the social-pressure diagnosis as a design brief. The fix is architectural: build low-cost ways to decline into the procedure itself, rather than relying on a child’s willpower.

Ethics

The researchers took careful steps to make the experience comfortable and engaging for the young children:

1. Parental Consent and Information Gathering: Before the experiment, parents or guardians provided informed consent and filled out a demographic and cartoon-watching form.
   • This form gathered information about the child’s age, gender, ethnicity, cartoon-watching habits, and familiarity with the specific cartoon characters used in the study (Dora the Explorer and Go Diego Go).
   • This ensured that children were familiar with the cartoon targets, minimizing the cognitive demands of the identification task and allowing for a clearer assessment of social influences on their responses.
2. Right to Withdraw: During the introduction, the researchers explicitly informed the children that they could withdraw from the study at any time without facing any negative consequences. This clear communication of their right to withdraw ensured that children felt empowered to participate voluntarily and without coercion, safeguarding their ethical rights.
3. Child-Friendly Introduction and Testing Environment: Female researchers introduced themselves as a group from a university working on a project about TV shows and computer games to avoid any anxiety or intimidation associated with a formal research study or legal context.
   • Three female experimenters and one female facilitator arrived at each private school, inviting only the children whose parents or guardians had given consent to participate.
   • Experimenters tested children individually, monitoring them for fatigue, anxiety, and stress.
4. Token of Appreciation: At the end of the study, children were given crayons and a coloring book for their participation.

The procedure for adults was similar but adapted for their age and cognitive abilities:

• Informed Consent and Introduction: Adults received a consent form at the beginning of the study, implying they were informed about the study’s nature and their rights as participants, including the right to withdraw.
  • Unlike the children, they were not told the specific focus on eyewitness identification to avoid demand characteristics that could bias their responses.
• Demographic Information: After completing the lineups, adults filled out a demographic questionnaire that included questions about their familiarity with the cartoon characters used in the study.

Issues and Debates

Application to everyday life: Consideration of Lineup Procedures

Traditional lineup procedures might be less reliable when involving children, as they might be more likely to make false identifications, particularly in target-absent lineups.

Law enforcement agencies should consider alternative lineup procedures for child witnesses. Two options stand out.

• Sequential lineups: Faces are shown one at a time, not together. This can reduce children’s pressure to pick someone when unsure (Lindsay & Wells, 1985; Steblay et al., 2001).
• Elimination lineups: Children make two judgments. First they pick the person most similar to the target, then decide whether that person is actually the target.

Splitting the relative judgment (“who looks most like him?”) from the absolute one (“is it him?”) targets the pressure to choose that Pozzulo et al. identified.

Evidence on Lineup Instructions and Format

Unbiased instructions help only so far. Steblay’s (1997) meta-analysis found that warning witnesses the culprit may not be present cut mistaken identifications in culprit-absent lineups by 42%.

The cost was only a 2% drop in correct identifications. Pozzulo et al.’s children heard this warning, yet still failed to reject at adult rates. For young children, the social pull of a lineup runs deeper than instructions can reach.

Format matters too. In Steblay et al.’s (2001) meta-analysis, witnesses mistakenly picked someone from a culprit-absent lineup 28% of the time with sequential presentation and 51% with simultaneous. Sequential lineups also produced fewer correct identifications when the culprit was present (35% versus 50%). That is a real trade-off.

The pattern suggests a stricter decision criterion under sequential presentation. Whether that makes it better policy remains debated (Wells, 2014).

Application to everyday life: Specialized Interviewing Techniques:

The study’s findings have implications for improving eyewitness interviewing techniques, particularly when involving children.

Law enforcement and legal professionals should be trained to use age-appropriate questioning methods and avoid suggestive language. They should also create a supportive, non-intimidating environment. This minimizes social pressure and maximizes the accuracy of children’s recollections.

Using techniques like cognitive interviewing, which encourages witnesses to recreate the context of the event, can improve recall accuracy.

Here is the evidence. Geiselman et al. (1985) found roughly 40% more correct statements than a standard police interview. A later meta-analysis confirmed an average of 41% more correct details, although with some increase in errors (Köhnken et al., 1999).

Interviewer neutrality matters doubly with children. Adult instruction can reshape their reports: children told to “keep it a secret” withheld information about events they had witnessed (Bottoms et al., 2002).

Courts also need caution. Where a target-absent lineup cannot be excluded, courts should weigh a child’s positive identification with explicit awareness of the false-positive risk (Pozzulo et al., 2012).

Alternative Cognitive Explanations

Pozzulo et al. argue that social demand, not cognitive incapacity, explains children’s false positives. Two cognitive accounts test how far that claim can be stretched.

• Suggestibility: Young children are vulnerable to memory distortion, partly because their cognitive control is still maturing (Ceci & Bruck, 1993).
• Source monitoring: A child may recognize a face yet misattribute why it is familiar (Johnson et al., 1993; Ross et al., 1994).

Suggestibility and Cognitive Control

Ceci and Bruck (1993) reviewed the child-witness suggestibility literature. They concluded that young children are especially vulnerable to memory distortion after leading questions and repeated interviewing.

Children also read adult expectations. Ceci and Bruck traced this to still-maturing cognitive control, including a weaker capacity to resist misleading information and to monitor where a memory came from.

The two accounts overlap, because both stress children’s sensitivity to adult expectation. They differ on mechanism. Ceci and Bruck place part of the vulnerability in cognitive immaturity, not only in a choice to comply under pressure.

Source Monitoring and Unconscious Transference

Source-monitoring theory distinguishes recognizing a face as familiar from knowing why it is familiar. The second skill matures later (Johnson et al., 1993).

Ross et al. (1994) showed the consequence for lineups. Witnesses who had seen an innocent bystander at a staged event were three times more likely to pick that bystander than an unfamiliar foil. This held in a later lineup that did not contain the culprit.

The error is called unconscious transference. It fell sharply when witnesses were warned that the bystander and the culprit might not be the same person.

Applied to the cartoon conditions, this theory predicts that a child could recognize Dora yet mis-source the recognition. The child might attribute it to the person the lineup wants found, rather than conclude the target is absent. It looks like social compliance. The origin, however, is cognitive.

Complementary, Not Competing

The accounts are complementary. Children’s false positives plausibly have a cognitive layer and a social layer.

Immature source monitoring is most exposed when a plausible foil is present (Johnson et al., 1993). Pressure to choose within an adult-run procedure supplies the social layer (Pozzulo et al., 2012).

The study’s distinctive contribution is clear. It shows that this social layer does substantial, independent work.

Nature versus nurture

Certain cognitive processes involved in memory and perception, crucial for accurate eyewitness testimony, have biological foundations (nature).

These processes, such as attention, memory capacity, and cognitive control, are likely influenced by genetic factors and develop along predetermined trajectories.

Children’s cognitive abilities, such as memory, are still developing. This may make them more susceptible to suggestion and less able to accurately recall and recognize faces.

The study emphasizes that environmental factors, particularly social influences, play a significant role in shaping children’s identification abilities (nurture).

Children learn from experience. Their interactions with others and exposure to various stimuli shape their understanding of social cues, expectations, and appropriate behavior in different contexts.

This socialization process can influence how children respond to authority figures, interpret instructions, and perceive social pressure in situations like lineup identifications.

Culture plays a part. Societies that emphasize obedience to authority might foster a greater tendency for children to comply with perceived expectations. This could lead to higher false positive responses in lineup tasks.

Similarly, cultural variations in facial recognition, influenced by exposure to diverse or homogeneous populations, could impact the accuracy of identifications.

Validity Summary

Weighing the Strengths and Weaknesses above, the study’s validity can be summarized as follows:

• Internal validity: High, thanks to standardization, matched foils and randomization, though demand characteristics and fatigue qualify this.
• Population validity: Limited, meaning findings may not generalize beyond a narrow sample of 4 to 7-year-olds, student adults and one Canadian region.
• Ecological validity: Low, given laboratory videos, static photo arrays, familiar cartoon targets and no real stakes.
• Children in research: A model of ethical work with a vulnerable group, through consent, withdrawal rights and comfort measures.

Individual and situational explanations

Individual differences

Individual variations in memory capacity and processing speed can impact eyewitness identification. Some individuals might have a greater capacity for encoding and retaining visual information, leading to more detailed and accurate memories of faces.

Age is a crucial factor here. The study’s comparison of children and adults reveals its role in eyewitness identification accuracy.

For example, younger children might have difficulty focusing on the critical details of a face, leading to less reliable memory encoding.

Situational explanations

The study’s use of simultaneous lineup procedures, where all individuals are presented at the same time, could contribute to children’s higher false positive rates.

Simultaneous lineups might increase the pressure on children to choose someone, as they are presented with multiple options and might feel compelled to select one, even when uncertain.

This is why the study’s punchline is situational. Age is an individual factor, but the lineup situation itself pressures children into choosing. Changing the situation, for example with sequential or elimination procedures, is therefore the remedy.

Reductionism versus holism

Reductionist elements: The study exemplifies a reductionist approach by isolating specific variables to investigate their influence on eyewitness identification accuracy.

Pozzulo et al. carefully manipulate factors like age group (children versus adults), target type (cartoon versus human), and lineup type (target-present versus target-absent) while controlling for extraneous variables.

Holistic elements: This recognition of the interplay between individual and situational factors reflects a more holistic understanding of eyewitness testimony. It moves beyond isolating single variables.

The analyses of individual and situational explanations show that the two interact. Individual characteristics, such as cognitive abilities and susceptibility to social pressure, combine with situational factors, such as authority figures’ presence and lineup procedures. Together they influence identification performance.

Keep Learning

To help reinforce your understanding and prepare for potential exam questions, here are some practice questions related to this study for AICE Psychology:

1. The study by Pozzulo et al. is listed as a core study in the cognitive approach. Identify one other core study from the cognitive approach. [1]
2. State the topic investigated by Pozzulo et al. [1]
3. Suggest one question about Pozzulo et al. that could be answered using qualitative data. [1]

Study Summary Sheet

Original Journal Article

References

Bottoms, B., Goodman, G., Schwartz-Kenney, B., & Thomas, S. (2002). Children’s use of secrecy in the context of eyewitness reports. Law and Human Behavior, 26(3), 285–313.

Ceci, S. J., & Bruck, M. (1993). Suggestibility of the child witness: A historical review and synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 113(3), 403–439. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.113.3.403

Devlin, Lord P. (1976). Report to the Secretary of State for the Home Department of the Departmental Committee on Evidence of Identification in Criminal Cases. Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.

Fitzgerald, R. J., & Price, H. L. (2015). Eyewitness identification across the life span: A meta-analysis of age differences. Psychological Bulletin, 141(6), 1228–1265. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000013

Geiselman, R. E., Fisher, R. P., MacKinnon, D. P., & Holland, H. L. (1985). Eyewitness memory enhancement in the police interview: Cognitive retrieval mnemonics versus hypnosis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70(2), 401–412.

Johnson, M. K., Hashtroudi, S., & Lindsay, D. S. (1993). Source monitoring. Psychological Bulletin, 114(1), 3–28. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.114.1.3

Köhnken, G., Milne, R., Memon, A., & Bull, R. (1999). The cognitive interview: A meta-analysis. Psychology, Crime & Law, 5(1–2), 3–27.

Lindsay, R. C. L., & Wells, G. L. (1985). Improving eyewitness identifications from lineups: Simultaneous versus sequential lineup presentation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70(3), 556–564. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.70.3.556

Lowenstein, J. A., Blank, H., & Sauer, J. D. (2010). Uniforms affect the accuracy of children’s eyewitness identification decisions. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 7(1), 59–73. https://doi.org/10.1002/jip.104

Pozzulo, J. D., Dempsey, J., Bruer, K., & Sheahan, C. (2012). The culprit in target-absent lineups: Understanding young children’s false positive responding. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 27(1), 55–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-011-9089-8

Pozzulo, J. D., Reed, J. E., Pettalia, J., & Dempsey, J. (2016). Simultaneous, sequential, elimination, and wildcard: A comparison of lineup procedures. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 31(1), 71–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-015-9168-3

Ross, D. F., Ceci, S. J., Dunning, D., & Toglia, M. P. (1994). Unconscious transference and mistaken identity: When a witness misidentifies a familiar but innocent person. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(6), 918–930. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.79.6.918

Steblay, N. M. (1997). Social influence in eyewitness recall: A meta-analytic review of lineup instruction effects. Law and Human Behavior, 21(3), 283–297. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024890732059

Steblay, N., Dysart, J., Fulero, S., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (2001). Eyewitness accuracy rates in sequential and simultaneous lineup presentations: A meta-analytic comparison. Law and Human Behavior, 25(5), 459–473. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012888715007

Thompson, L. E., Pozzulo, J., Pratt, K. J., Sheahan, C. L., Fraser, B. M., & Deweyert, C. E. (2020). Testing a new lineup procedure with children: The elimination with wildcard. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 69, Article 101161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2020.101161

Wells, G. L. (2014). Eyewitness identification: Probative value, criterion shifts, and policy regarding the sequential lineup. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(1), 11–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721413504781

Wells, G. L., & Luus, C. A. E. (1990). Police lineups as experiments: Social methodology as a framework for properly conducted lineups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16(1), 106–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167290161008