Pozzulo et al.

(line-ups)
Pozzulo, J D, Dempsey, J, Bruer, K and Sheahan, C (2011), The Culprit in
Target-Absent Lineups:
Understanding Young Children’s False Positive Responding. Journal of Police and
Criminal Psychology, 27(1): 55–62
Psychology Being Investigated
The study delves into two key aspects of psychology – eyewitness identification and
the influence of social versus cognitive factors on decision-making, especially in
young children.
Eyewitness Identification
This is a critical area in forensic psychology, particularly regarding the reliability and
accuracy of eyewitness testimony in legal contexts. Eyewitness identification
typically involves recognizing a suspect from a lineup. However, this process can be
complex, as it depends on various factors like memory, perception, and
psychological stress.
Social versus Cognitive Influences
Cognitive Factors – These refer to the mental processes involved in memory and
recognition. In the context of eyewitness identification, cognitive factors include a
person’s ability to accurately recall and recognize faces or details from a memory of
the event.
Social Factors – These involve the influence of social context and pressures on
decision-making. For example, in a lineup, a child might feel compelled to choose
even when uncertain, due to perceived expectations from authority figures (like
police officers or experimenters) or a desire to be helpful.
Background
Pozzulo’s study is grounded in developmental psychology and cognitive psychology.
It addresses the developmental aspects of memory and cognition in children,
exploring how these factors influence their ability to accurately recall and identify
individuals in lineups. This includes examining age-related differences in memory
accuracy and susceptibility to suggestion or leading questions, crucial factors in
legal contexts where children may serve as eyewitnesses.
The study also delves into the specifics of eyewitness identification procedures,
such as the differences in children’s responses to target-present (where the
perpetrator is in the lineup) versus target-absent (where the perpetrator is not
present) lineups. This includes exploring the psychological mechanisms underlying
these responses, such as the role of social cues, perceived authority expectations,
and children’s understanding of the task.
The study builds on existing research on the accuracy and reliability of child
eyewitness testimony, comparing it to adults. This comparison is important in
understanding at what developmental stage children’s eyewitness abilities begin to
resemble those of adults and what factors might influence these abilities.
Aims
1. Determine the Role of Social vs. Cognitive Factors in Lineups – The
study sought to assess whether false identifications in target-absent lineups
are more influenced by social pressures rather than cognitive abilities. This
was tested using a lineup task with low cognitive demands, where a high
correct identification rate was expected.
2. Compare False Positive Rates Between Children and Adults – The
study hypothesized that while children and adults might have similar correct
identification rates in easy lineups, children would show a higher rate of false
positives in target-absent lineups, indicating a greater susceptibility to social
influences compared to adults.
Procedure
Participants
Children – 59 young children aged 4 to 7 years (mean age 4.98 years), including 21
females and 38 males, were recruited from pre-kindergarten/kindergarten classes
from three private schools in Eastern Ontario, Canada.
Adults – 53 adults aged 17 to 30 years (mean age 20.54 years), including 36
females and 17 males, were recruited from the Introductory Psychology Participant
Pool at an Eastern Ontario university.
Design
The study used a 2 (age group – young children vs. adults) × 2 (target type –
cartoon vs. human) × 2 (lineup type – target-present vs. target-absent) mixed
factorial design.
Materials
 Demographics and Cartoon Watching Form – Participants (or
parents/guardians for children) provided demographic information and details
about their familiarity with the target cartoons used in the study.
 Human Face Targets – Video clips of a female and a male Caucasian
university student performing everyday tasks, with close-ups of their faces.
 Human Face Foils – Photographs of foils (similar-looking individuals)
selected based on appearance similarity to the human targets.
 Cartoon Targets – Clips of Dora the Explorer and Go Diego Go, focusing on
the characters’ faces.
 Cartoon Foils – Images of cartoon characters similar to the targets.
Procedure
Lineup Presentation – Each target (human or cartoon) was presented in a lineup
using a simultaneous procedure. Lineups were either target-present (including the
actual target) or target-absent (excluding the target but including similar foils).
Instructions – Participants were instructed to point to the photo of the
person/cartoon from the video if present, or to a designated box if not present.
Administration – Three female experimenters, dressed in professional-casual attire
to reduce authority cues, administered the lineups to children.
Data Collection Technique
The study used visual recognition tasks, where participants viewed video clips and
subsequently identified characters (human or cartoon) from photo lineups displayed
on laptop screens.
Measured and Manipulated Variables
Manipulated Variables – Age of the participants (children vs. adults), type of
target (cartoon vs. human), and lineup type (target-present vs. target-absent).
Measured Variables – Correct identifications in target-present lineups and correct
rejections in target-absent lineups, to assess the influence of social and cognitive
factors on the participants’ decision-making process.
Results
Quantitative Findings
 Correct Identification Rates for Human Faces – For human faces, the
average correct identification rate was 0.23 for children and 0.66 for adults.
 Correct Identification Rates for Cartoon Faces – For cartoon faces,
children had an average correct identification rate of 0.99, while adults had a
rate of 0.95.
 Comparison Between Human and Cartoon Faces – Children were
significantly more accurate in identifying cartoon faces (0.99) compared to
human faces (0.23), with a statistically significant difference (X^2(1,
N=116)=66.10, p=.001). Adults also showed higher accuracy with cartoon
faces (0.95) compared to human faces (0.66), with a significant difference
(X^2(1, N=103)=11.25, p=.001).
 Children vs. Adults in Identifying Cartoon Characters – Children and
adults showed a comparable correct identification rate for cartoon characters
(0.99 vs. 0.95, respectively; X^2(1, N=110)=.39, p=.53).
 Children vs. Adults in Identifying Human Faces – Children had a
significantly lower rate of correct identification for human faces compared to
adults (0.23 vs. 0.66; X^2(1, N=168)=18.83, p=.001).
Qualitative Findings
  Free Recall Descriptions – Participants were asked to describe everything
they could remember about each video clip. The researchers recorded
responses from child participants, while adult participants recorded their own
responses. This was used as a filler task between the video exposure and
lineup presentation, with approximately 2 minutes between each video
exposure and lineup presentation.
 Procedure Differences Between Children and Adults – The study’s
procedure varied slightly for children and adults, with different approaches to
introducing the task and obtaining consent. The study ensured comfort and
reduced stress for children, using crafts and gentle questioning. Adults were
introduced to the study in a more formal laboratory setting, asked to recall
details in writing, and given demographic questionnaires after the task
completion.
Representation and Interpretation
The quantitative results, particularly the correct identification rates, indicate that
children are significantly more accurate in identifying familiar cartoon characters
than human faces. In contrast, adults show better identification accuracy overall,
with a slightly higher accuracy for cartoons. This suggests that familiarity and the
nature of the stimuli (cartoon vs. human) play crucial roles in the accuracy of
eyewitness identification, especially for children.
The qualitative aspect of the study, primarily through the free recall descriptions,
provided insights into the cognitive processes and attentional aspects of both
children and adults during the identification task. This qualitative data complements
the quantitative findings, offering a more holistic view of how different age groups
process and recall information in eyewitness identification scenarios.
Conclusions
Role of Social vs. Cognitive Factors – The study assessed whether children’s
false positive responses in target-absent lineups are more influenced by social
factors than cognitive factors. It found that although children could correctly identify
familiar targets (cartoon characters) with nearly 100% accuracy, they had a
significantly lower rate of correct rejections in target-absent lineups compared to
adults. This suggests that social factors, rather than cognitive ability, play a more
significant role in children’s false positive responses.
Differences Between Children and Adults – The study highlighted notable
differences in how children and adults respond to lineup tasks. Children showed a
lower correct rejection rate for both familiar (cartoon characters) and unfamiliar
(human faces) targets compared to adults. This indicates that children are more
prone to falsely identify someone in target-absent lineups, regardless of the target’s
familiarity.
Implications for Eyewitness Identification – The findings of this study have
important implications for understanding children’s identification evidence in legal
settings. Given the lower correct rejection rates among children, the study suggests
that children’s eyewitness testimony, especially in target-absent lineups, might be
less reliable due to higher susceptibility to social influences. This points to the need
for careful consideration and potentially modified procedures when involving child
eyewitnesses in legal contexts.
Strengths
Control of Variables – By calculating mean correct identification rates for human
and cartoon faces separately for each child, the study controlled for target-specific
peculiarities, which could otherwise skew the results. This methodological precision
ensured that the findings were more likely to reflect general patterns rather than
anomalies associated with particular targets.
Counterbalancing and Randomization – The positioning of targets/replacements
in the lineups was randomized, and the order of video and photoarray presentation
was varied. This counterbalancing reduced potential biases and order effects, thus
enhancing the internal validity of the study.
Safeguarding Participants’ Comfort and Well-being – The study took several
steps to ensure the comfort and well-being of the child participants. For instance,
children were introduced to the study in a non-threatening manner, and the
researchers engaged them in crafts before starting the experiment to establish a
comfortable environment. This approach reduced anxiety and stress, which is
crucial when working with young children in a research setting.
Weaknesses
Limited Age Range and Demographics of Participants – The study focused on
a specific age group of children (4- to 7-years-old), which limits the generalizability
of the findings to other age groups. The developmental differences in memory and
suggestibility can vary significantly across different age ranges in childhood.
Use of Familiar vs. Unfamiliar Targets – The study compared familiar cartoon
characters with unfamiliar human faces. While this design provided insights into the
influence of familiarity on identification accuracy, it might have introduced a bias.
Children are generally more engaged with and better at recognizing familiar cartoon
characters, which could lead to an overestimation of their identification abilities in
more realistic scenarios, where targets are likely to be unfamiliar.
Ecological Validity – The procedure involved showing video clips followed by a
lineup identification task, which may not fully replicate the complexities and
stressors of real-world eyewitness situations. The ecological validity of the study
could be questioned, as the controlled environment of a research setting differs
significantly from the often chaotic and stressful circumstances in which eyewitness
identifications typically occur.