Ecological Validity
 Dysart & Lindsay (2007) noted that many
theories regarding choosing at showups are
difficult to test, because it’s so difficult to
replicate the inherent pressures involved in
actual criminal investigations where the witness
knows that their identification will result in a
person going to jail.
Dysart, J. E., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (2007). Showup identifications: Suggestive
technique or reliable method? In Rod C. L. Lindsay, D. F. Ross, J. D. Read,
& M. P. Toglia (Eds.), The Handbook of Eyewitness Psychology, Vol II: Memory
for people. (pp. 137-153). Mahwah, NJ US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Ecological Validity

Dysart & Lindsay (2007) noted that many theories regarding choosing at
showups are difficult to test, because it is so difficult for investigators to
replicate the inherent pressures involved in actual criminal investigations
where the witness knows that their identification will result in a person
going to jail.
 Question: How much of the suggestiveness of
showups is directly related to these unique real
world pressures that are inherent to this
identification procedure when used by police in
the field?
Dysart, J. E., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (2007). Showup identifications: Suggestive technique or reliable
method? In Rod C. L. Lindsay, D. F. Ross, J. D. Read, & M. P. Toglia (Eds.), The Handbook of
Eyewitness Psychology, Vol II: Memory for people. (pp. 137-153). Mahwah, NJ US: Lawrence
Erlbaum
Ecological Validity

Dysart & Lindsay (2007) noted that many theories regarding choosing at
showups are difficult to test, because it is so difficult for investigators to
replicate the inherent pressures involved in actual criminal investigations
where the witness knows that their identification will result in a person going
to jail.
 Question: How much of the suggestiveness of showups
is directly related to these unique real world pressures
that are inherent to this procedure when used by police
in the field?
 The current study was designed to address this
issue.*
Dysart, J. E., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (2007). Showup identifications: Suggestive technique or reliable
method? In Rod C. L. Lindsay, D. F. Ross, J. D. Read, & M. P. Toglia (Eds.), The Handbook of
Eyewitness Psychology, Vol II: Memory for people. (pp. 137-153). Mahwah, NJ US: Lawrence
How did we do it?
 The LA County Sherriff and the University
Police agreed to work with us.
How did we do it?
 The LA County Sherriff and the University Police
agreed to work with us on this study.
 We staged a minor crime and subsequent investigation
that participants were led to believe was was real, and
then examined how witness’ performed when suspects
were presented in police custody under varied
conditions: (1) Non-Suggestive Conditions; (2)
Suggestive Conditions; and (3) When Stolen Property
appeared to be present.*
The Suggestive Condition:
Examining Pre-admonition Suggestion
 What happens when a witness is exposed to suggestive
information prior to being properly admonished
indicating that the police believed they had the right guy?
The Suggestive Condition:
Examining Pre-admonition Suggestion
 Quinlivan et al., (2012) coined the term Pre-admonition
Suggestion.
 These investigators found that suggestions given to a
witness inferring that a culprit was present in a 6-pack
mitigated the effect of the admonition, and increased both
choosing in target-absent conditions, confidence in the selections
made.*
Quinlivan, D. S., Neuschatz, J. S., Cutler, B. L., Wells, G. L., McClung, J., & Harker, D. L.
(2012), Do pre-admonition suggestions moderate the effect of unbiased lineup instructions?.
Legal and Criminological Psychology.17 165-176
The Suggestive Condition: Examining
Pre-admonition Suggestion
 The current study extends this work to showups, and
examined how being exposed to suggestive information
indicating that the police believed they had caught ‘the
culprit’ could influence choosing and confidence.
 We did this by having witnesses overhear a radio
dispatch between officers indicating that they believed
they had “caught ‘the’ guy”.*
Quinlivan, D. S., Neuschatz, J. S., Cutler, B. L., Wells, G. L., McClung, J., & Harker, D. L.
(2012), Do pre-admonition suggestions moderate the effect of unbiased lineup
instructions?. Legal and Criminological Psychology.17 165-176.
The Possession of Stolen Property:
The Laptop Condition
 It is not uncommon for witnesses to learn that
the suspect possesses property that appears to be
related to the crime, and even have that property
visible to the witness at the showup.*
The Possession of Stolen Property:
The Laptop Condition
 Smith, Leach and Cutler (2013) examined
this issue in a nicely designed controlled
study using live individuals rather than
pictures.
Smith A. M., Leach, A.M, Cutler, B. L. (2013). Facilitating accuracy in showup
identification procedures: The effects of the presence of stolen property.
Applied Cognitive Psychology 27, 216-221
The Possession of Stolen Property:
The Laptop Condition
 Smith et al (2013) examined this issue in a
nicely designed controlled study using live
individuals rather than pictures.
 We took this one step farther to see
what happens in actual showups.
 We had the officer holding a laptop
computer similar to the one stolen in
the staged crime during the showup
(This method was suggested by the
Sheriff).*
Smith A. M., Leach, A.M, Cutler, B. L. (2013). Facilitating accuracy in showup
identification procedures: The effects of the presence of stolen property.
Applied Cognitive Psychology 27, 216-221
Hypotheses
 Overhearing the suggestive radio call indicating that
officers believed they had caught “the guy” and
inferring that the suspect had ‘the’ Stolen
property/Laptop computer in his possession would
both increase choosing and confidence in targetabsent conditions.
 We were generally interested in the innocence risk of
showups in ecologically valid conditions when the
witnesses believed the theft and investigation were
real.
Methods
N=299
 Participants were told the study was about personality
and memory.
 They were all sequestered in a single room during the
procedures, where they completed the NEO-PI while
they waited.
 Escorted to the lab in groups of 6-7 to participate (4-5
minute walk in the company of the thief).
 A confederate/thief was always with the group: We
always used two waiting rooms, so the thief of was
presumed to come from the other room.*
Maximizing Exposure to the Target
 The participants all sat
around a table
together.
 The thief always sat at
the head of the table,
opposite the RA.
 The thief drew
attention to himself by
taking a cell phone call
during the reading of
the informed consent
and rudely refusing to
get off the phone when
asked.*
picture
The Crime
 After the call, the thief set his phone timer to 7-
minutes.
 Participants were then assigned to work on laptop
computers: The thief was always positioned near the
door.
 7-minutes after taking the phone call, he absconded
with the lap top computer, and, after a brief delay, the
RA gave chase.*
The Crime Report and Police Response
 Within ear shot of the participants the RA’s called the
professor to report that a laptop was stolen and
provided a brief description of the thief.
Medium height, medium weight, Latino male, wearing a dark
t-shirt, jeans, and a blue Dodger cap.
The Crime Report and Police Response
 RA’s call with ear shot of the group the professor to
report that the laptop was stolen by a student, and
provide a brief description of the thief.
 Medium height, medium weight, Latino male, wearing a dark
t-shirt, jeans, and a blue Dodger cap.
 The RA then told the participants that the professor
will call the police and that they should finish their
work so they can get their full research credit.
The Crime Report and Police Response

RA’s call with ear shot of the group the
professor to report that the laptop was
stolen by a student, and provide a brief
description of the thief.

Medium height, medium weight, Latino male,
wearing a dark t-shirt, jeans, and a blue Dodger
cap.

The RA then tells the group that the
professor will call the police and that they
should stay where they are and finish their
work so they can get their full research
credit.
 10-minutes later, a university
police officer responded to
the call.*
The Experimental
Manipulation: The Radio Call
 About 2 minutes after his arrival, the officer gets a
radio dispatch (His radio is turned up to max volume
so all can hear clearly).
The Experimental
Manipulation: The Radio Call
 About 2 minutes after his arrival, the office gets a radio
dispatch (his radio is turned up to max volume so al can
hear clearly.
 The Control Condition: The radio call said
“The Sheriff has detained a suspect who matches the
description of the thief, please bring the witnesses
down to the loading dock behind the building to make
and identification”
The Experimental
Manipulation: The Radio Call
 About 2 minutes after his arrival, the office gets a radio dispatch
(his radio is turned up to max volume so al can hear clearly.
 The Control condition: The radio call says “The Sheriff has
detained a suspect who matches the description of the thief,
please bring the witnesses down to the loading dock behind the
building to make an identification”
 The Suggestion Condition: The radio call said
“The Sheriff ‘caught the guy’, please bring the
witnesses down to the loading dock behind the
building to make an identification”
The Experimental
Manipulation: The Radio Call
 About 2 minutes after his arrival, the office gets a radio dispatch
(his radio is turned up to max volume so al can hear clearly.
 The Control Condition The radio call says “ The Sheriff has
detained a suspect who matches the description of the thief,
please bring the witnesses down to the loading dock behind the
building to make and identification”
 The Suggestion Condition: The radio call says “ The Sheriff
caught the guy, please bring the witnesses down to the loading
dock behind the building to make and identification”
 In the Stolen Property/Laptop Condition: “The
Sheriff has caught a guy with a laptop who matches the
description of the thief, please bring the witnesses down
to the loading dock behind the building to make an
identification”*
Manipulation Check:
Did you hear the Radio call?
 If witnesses reported that they did not hear
the radio dispatch or could not describe it’s
content, they were dropped.
 38 participants were dropped for this
reason.*
The Showup
A 20-minute delay
 Witnesses were then taken
down to the loading dock
behind the building where
they were presented with an
innocent suspect in custody
of the sheriff.
 The suspect was always
dressed similarly to the thief
in non-distinctive clothing
(Black or Navy Tee shirt,
jeans and a Dodger hat). *
The Showup
Procedure
• The showup procedures were designed by a LA
County Sheriff ’s commander in charge of the
training division.
The Showup
Procedure
•
The showup procedures were designed by a LA County Sheriff ’s
commander in charge of the training division.
• Witnesses were admonished as a group, nearby.
• They were then taken individually to view the
suspect out of view and earshot from the
others.
The Showup
Procedure
•
•
•
The showup procedures were designed by a LA County Sheriff ’s
commander in charge of the training division.
Witnesses were admonished as a group, nearby.
They were then taken individually to view the suspect out of view
and earshot from the others.
• The suspect was viewed in the custody of a
deputy 42-feet away, through full length glass
doors (witness stands at the glass, suspect out
side in the sun 42 feet away) *
The Showup:
Data Collected
by the Cops
• The officer recorded the following information:
-Name of the witness
-ID Yes/No
-Confidence in the decision (Either way 0-100).
-Response Latency
Debriefing and Final
Questionnaire
• When the entire group was finished, they
were debriefed and escorted to a room to
complete questionnaires to collect qualitative
data about their experience (e.g., Did you feel
pressured to ID, Did you assume the guy in
handcuffs must be the thief, why? Etc…)
Similarity of the Suspect to the Thief
 The thief was either
approximately the same
height and weight as the
thief*
N=89
Similarity of the Suspect to the Thief
 Or, there suspect was
approximately 6” taller or
shorter and about 50+
pounds heavier then the
thief. N=101
 We also had a
Suspect/Target present
condition across all 3
conditions. N=109
One of our Similar Pairs: Matched for Ht. & Wt.
Similar
Thief/
Suspect
Pair
Non Similar Pair
5’6”
6’
6’
Non Similar Pair
5’6”
Design
N=320
2 (Similar vs. Non-Similar) x 2 (Target
Present vs. Target Absent) x 3 (Control
vs. Suggestion v. Laptop/stolen property)
Target Absent (TA) Conditions
False Identifications
of
Innocent Suspects
TA Non-Similar:
Control
TA Non-Similar: Stolen
Property/ Laptop Present
TA Non-Similar:
Radio call Suggestion
“The Sheriff Caught the Guy”
TA Similar: Control
Sim. vs. Non-Sim. Control X2(1,N=65)=2.63,p=.05,Φ=.23
TA Similar:
Laptop/Stolen
Property
TA Similar:
Radio call Suggestion
“The Sheriff Caught the Guy”
Overall Similarly Effect X2(1,N=189)=5.76.,p=.02,
Logistic Regression
DV= Identification Y/N
2(4) = 10.25, p=.04
X
IVs: Control v. Suggestion
Similar vs. Non-Sim. Cont. v. Sugg.: Wald = 5.80, p=.02
Sim. v. Non-Sim: Wald=4.45. p=.03
Latino vs. Other
Gender
Target Present: Control
Target Present:
Laptop/Stolen Property
Logistic Regression
DV= Identify Y/N
IVs: Control v. Suggestion
Target Present v. Absent
Latino vs. Other
Gender
X2(4) = 21.98, p<.000
TA v TP: Wald=16.16, p<.0001
Cont.v. Sugg.: Wald= 4.05, p=.04
Ceiling?
Confidence
 Hearing the suggestion that the sheriff
believed they had “caught the guy”,
before the admonition and showup not
increased choosing in the target absent
conditions but it also had a dramatic effect
on witness confidence for target absent but
not target present conditions.
Confidence
 Hearing the suggestion that the sheriff believed they had “caught
‘the’ guy”, before the admonition and showup identification not
only drove up choosing in the target absent conditions but it also
had a dramatic effect on witness confidence for target absent but
not target present. Conditions.
 A 2(Choosing: Yes-No) x 2(Target Present
v. Absent) x 3(Condition: Control, Laptop,
Suggestion) factorial ANOVA was
conducted with Confidence as the DV.*
Target Absent-Control
Confidence for False IDs = Correct Rejections
Hearing the suggestive radio call indicating that
the police believed they had ‘caught the guy’
*Increased confidence for choosers
*Suppressed confidence for correct rejections
Choosing x Condition Interaction: F(2,183)=3.78, p=.03, η2=.06
Presence of the Stolen Property/Laptop
Boosted Confidence for Choosing
But did not Suppress Confidence
in Correct Rejections
Sneak Peek Study #2
Lab v. Field N=296
To be presented at SARMAC
 What happens when participants
get the same long clear exposure
to the thief, and we use the same
20-minute retention interval, and
the same procedures for a live
showup: But, we debrief witnesses
before the identification procedure
and don’t use police.
No Handcuffs-No Cops-No Reality
Sneak Peek Study #2: Lab v. Field
Target Absent-Non-Similar
No Handcuffs-No cops-No Reality-Not Similar = No
Choosing!
6’
5’6
”
Study #2 Lab v. Field
Similar (Same Height/Weight)
Innocence Risk = pa/pa+pp
Acknowledgements
 Satchel Pratt
 Alma Olaguez
 Marilyn Orozco
 Gabrielle Aroz
 Jessica Pope
 Nicole Virgen
 Joseph Williams
 Mitsuki Hlaing
 Alice Tang
 Stacy Benavides
 Brenna Dotson