Eyewitness Identification and the Weapon Focus Effect

EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATION AND THE WEAPON FOCUS EFFECT:

EFFECTS OF WEAPON PRESENCE, CONCEALMENT,

AND EXPOSURE TIME

A Dissertation

JENNIFER L. DIAS

Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of Texas A&M University-Commerce in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY May 2017

EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATION AND THE WEAPON FOCUS EFFECT:

EFFECTS OF WEAPON PRESENCE, CONCEALMENT,

AND EXPOSURE TIME

A Dissertation

JENNIFER L. DIAS

Approved by:

Advisor: Curt Carlson

Committee: Maria Carlson Lacy Krueger David Hurley

Head of Department: Jennifer Schroeder

Dean of the College: Timothy Letzring

Dean of Graduate Studies: Mary Beth Sampson

iii

Jennifer L. Dias

ABSTRACT

EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATION AND THE WEAPON FOCUS EFFECT: EFFECTS OF WEAPON PRESENCE, CONCEALMENT, AND EXPOSURE TIME

Jennifer L. Dias, PhD Texas A&M University-Commerce, 2017

Advisor: Curt Carlson, PhD

The study examined the effect of exposure to the perpetrator and weapon visibility on the weapon focus effect (WFE). Participants were presented a mock crime video with the perpetrator holding either no weapon, a visible weapon, or a concealed weapon which he refers to and creates a bulge in his clothing. One exposure condition exposed the witness to the perpetrator and weapon for approximately 25 s and another for approximately 35 s from a distance of 2-4 m.

After watching the video, participants were asked to make an identification decision from either a perpetrator-present or -absent lineup and rate their confidence in that decision. The first prediction was that the WFE would be replicated in the bad, but not good view of the perpetrator.

A second prediction was there would be no WFE in the concealed condition for either good or bad view of the perpetrator. A final prediction was that those presented with the good view of the perpetrator would out-perform those presented with the bad view, regardless of weapon presence. Participants with a bad view of the perpetrator were more likely to falsely identify a foil from a perpetrator-absent lineup. Unexpectedly, the visible weapon condition produced

v fewer correct identifications than concealed and no weapon conditions. Accuracy was highest in the concealed and visible weapon conditions.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This dissertation would not have been possible without the support of my family, friends, and colleagues. The journey to completion has been long, but the endless amounts of encouragement and motivation from all have kept me going. Especially these past two years while I have battled breast cancer. This is for Quade, my reason and inspiration for everything since the day he was born. Thank you for always knowing just what to say when I needed it most. A special thank you to Bryan. He entered this journey when the hardest part began. Thank you for taking care of me and always having faith that I could endure it all. Thank you to those participating on my committee. Your contributions are appreciated and valued. An extra special thank you to Dr. Curt Carlson. He will never know the breadth of what he has taught me. He gave me not only a field of study to love but also has taught me more about writing and statistics than anyone else in my academic journey. As a result, confidence in my ability to successfully contribute to research in eyewitness identification grows daily. I hope to collaborate with him on future projects. I will be forever grateful for his leadership and the time he graciously donated to help me achieve this goal.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ...... viii

CHAPTER

1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1

Statement of the Problem ...... 3

Literature Review ...... 4

The Weapon Focus Effect ...... 5

The arousal hypothesis of the weapon focus effect ...... 6

The unusualness hypothesis of the weapon focus effect ...... 9

Law enforcement and the weapon focus effect ...... 15

Weapon concealment ...... 18

Exposure time to the perpetrator ...... 20

Hypotheses ...... 23

2. METHOD ...... 25

Participants ...... 25

Materials ...... 25

Procedure ...... 26

Design and Analysis ...... 27

3. RESULTS ...... 28

Identifications from perpetrator-absent vs. perpetrator-present lineups ...... 28

Signal detection analysis ...... 29

Eyewitness recall ...... 30

4. DISCUSSION ...... 32

viii

Limitations ...... 33

Future Directions ...... 35

Conclusions ...... 37

REFERENCES ...... 38

APPENDICES ...... 45

A. Links to mock crime videos ...... 46

B. Example of perpetrator present lineup (perpetrator in position 4) ...... 48

C. Example of perpetrator absent lineup ...... 50

D. Memory Questionnaire ...... 52

E. Demographics ...... 54

VITA ...... 56

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE

1. Identification and Rejection Rates across Conditions ...... 37

2. Recall Accuracy across Conditions ...... 39

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

Guilt or innocence is often determined by the ability of an eyewitness to pick a suspect out of a lineup. However, failing to identify the guilty or misidentifying the innocent are potential errors made by an eyewitness (Clark, Benjamin, Wixted, Mickes, & Gronlund, 2015).

Despite the knowledge that memory is vulnerable to error and does not capture a perfect account of the event, the criminal justice system relies heavily on eyewitness identification. The

Innocence Project (2016) reports that eyewitness identification is the primary cause of wrongful convictions in cases involving DNA evidence. Out of the first 325 wrongful convictions overturned by DNA, 235 (72%) were due in part to eyewitness misidentification.

The reliability of eyewitness identification was questioned as early as 1907 by Hugo

Munsterberg. His book On the Witness Stand, containing essays on psychology and crime, including the fallibility of eyewitness memory, was an early influence in the fields of psychology and law (Memon, Mastroberadino, & Fraser, 2008). Borchard (1932), a law professor at Yale, wrote a book outlining 65 wrongful convictions and found eyewitness identification to be a key contributor.

Wells (1978) introduced a categorization system for two categories of variables affecting eyewitness identification: system and estimator variables. The criminal justice system controls system variables and researchers frequently study them in hopes of reducing eyewitness inaccuracy. Examples include the type of lineup presented, instructions given to the witness, and the amount of time between the crime and communication with witnesses. The justice system does not control estimator variables, but they still affect identification accuracy. Examples

2 include conditions at the time of encoding, characteristics of witness and perpetrator, race, and weapon presence during a crime.

Researchers have focused mainly on system variables, particularly lineup types (Steblay,

Dysart, & Wells, 2011). Although estimator variables have not received as much attention from researchers, weapon presence during a crime has received a reasonable amount. The Weapon

Focus Effect (WFE) refers to an eyewitness’ attention being drawn to a perpetrator’s weapon during a crime. Research has shown that when a weapon is present, memory for the perpetrator and other peripheral details is degraded (Steblay, 1992). System and estimator variables have been studied for many years, but there is still a need for more knowledge and understanding to prevent the ongoing occurrence of wrongful conviction due to eyewitness misidentification.

The purpose of this study is to add to the literature on estimator variables, particularly weapon concealment. Research has supported the WFE, such that memory is reduced for peripheral details during a crime if a weapon is present, making it the central focus (Loftus,

Loftus, & Messo, 1987). When the weapon becomes the focus of attention rather than the face of the perpetrator, eyewitness identification performance can be harmed. The role of weapon visibility has been addressed in the literature as a condition to facilitate a weapon focus effect

(e.g., Cutler, Penrod, & Stuve, 1988; O'Rourke, Penrod, Cutler, & Stuve, 1989).

These studies are described in detail below.

A question that remains is whether this same phenomenon will occur with a concealed weapon. Carlson, Dias, Weatherford, and Carlson (2016) were the first to experimentally compare a concealed weapon condition with both a visible weapon and no weapon condition.

They investigated whether or not a WFE would occur when a weapon is concealed during a crime. If a perpetrator draws attention to a gun but does not openly brandish it, would it still

3 attract the attention of the eyewitness? The present dissertation continued the efforts of Carlson,

Dias, et al. (2016) by further investigating the WFE and weapon concealment by including a manipulation of view of the perpetrator.

The Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) (2012) reported the use of firearms in 41% of robberies, knives or other cutting instruments in 7.8%, and other weapons in 8.8%. In 2015, the statistics had increased slightly: firearms were used 42.2% of robberies, knives or cutting instruments in 7.9%, and other weapons in 9.1% (Federal Bureau of Investigations, 2015).

Particularly relevant to the present study is that weapons are often concealed during crimes.

According to a bank crime statistics report, a weapon was threatened (concealed) 2,331 times and shown 1,242 times out of 5,086 robberies (The Federal Bureau of Investigations, 2011). The

2014 report had similar statistics: Out of 3,961 robberies, 1,666 involved a concealed weapon and 930 shown weapons. These statistics indicate a need for more research on the impact of concealed weapons on eyewitness identification.

Statement of the Problem

The amount of research on the WFE and concealed weapons is limited. Fawcett, Russell,

Peace, and Christie (2013), after their meta-analysis of the WFE literature, stated that further investigation of weapon visibility is needed. They identified several studies that manipulated weapon visibility rather than weapon presence per se, all of which used the same methodology

(Cutler & Penrod, 1988; Cutler, Penrod, & Martens, 1987a; Cutler, Penrod, O’Rourke, &

Martens, 1986; O’Rourke et al., 1989). Each involved a mock crime scenario where a perpetrator visibly showed his weapon (high visibility condition) or had the weapon concealed in his pocket

(low visibility condition). All but one of the studies resulted in a small but significant effect of

4 weapon visibility. Fawcett et al. (2013) argued that further research should explore concealed weapon conditions compared to weapon-absent conditions.

Real crimes often involve a perpetrator using a concealed weapon, as shown by the FBI

(2014) statistics above. The weapon focus literature suggests that a weapon must be visible to produce a WFE (e.g., Pickel, 1998, 1999). Only recently was this suggestion tested. As described below, Carlson, Dias, et al. (2016) compared weapon present, absent, and concealed conditions while manipulating perpetrator presence in the lineup to capture eyewitness accuracy (i.e., both correct and false identifications). This study continued in that vein, but also manipulated another important variable: the amount of time available for an eyewitness to view the perpetrator and weapon (if present). Not only does the present study contribute data to the literature on weapon presence and concealment, but it also expands the literature on the WFE and this other important estimator variable of encoding time. The only published research investigating both encoding time and weapon presence (but not concealment) was conducted by Carlson, Young,

Weatherford, Carlson, Bednarz, and Jones (2016), as described below.

Literature Review

The criminal justice system has been made aware of the problems with eyewitness identification (e.g., Desmarais & Read, 2011). The need for knowledge and understanding of the many variables affecting eyewitness identifications is evident based on the frequency of wrongful convictions. Early works, such as Borchard (1932) and Munsterberg (1907), discussed the problems and unreliability of eyewitness identification. In 1972, the U.S. justice system established official standards for eyewitness identification, resulting from the court case of Neil v. Biggers (1972). In this case, it was determined that certain criteria must be considered in cases involving eyewitness testimony: (a) opportunity of the witness to view the perpetrator during the

5 crime, (b) degree of attention by the witness, (c) accuracy of the witness' early description of the perpetrator, (d) level of confidence shown by the witness at the time of confrontation, and (e) time span between the crime and the confrontation (Wells & Murray, 1983). Even with these criteria utilized by the court system, the most common contributing cause of wrongful convictions, when DNA evidence is involved, is eyewitness misidentification (Innocence

Project, 2016).

The beginning of modern eyewitness research can be traced to work by Elizabeth Loftus on post-event information in the 1970s (Loftus, 1979; Loftus & Palmer, 1974; Wells, Memon, &

Penrod, 2006). Also in the 1970s, Wells (1978) introduced the categorization system for system and estimator variables. System variables are those under the control of the criminal justice system and include the type of lineup, instructions given to the witness, and the amount of time between crime and identification in a lineup. Estimator variables are not controlled by the justice system and include encoding conditions, witness and perpetrator characteristics, and the presence of a weapon at the time of a crime.

The Weapon Focus Effect

Johnson and Scott (1976), in an unpublished study, first investigated the potential influence of a weapon on eyewitness identification. Two groups of participants (all female) were part of a study they thought was about memory. Participants in the weapon absent condition, while sitting in a waiting room, overheard a conversation. Following the conversation, a man with greasy hands and a pen entered the waiting room and left. The scenario was the same for the weapon condition except the conversation was an argument and the man entered the waiting room holding a bloody letter opener. Participants were then asked to identify the perpetrator

6 from a set of 50 photos. The control group made an accurate identification (49%) more often than the weapon condition (33%).

Loftus et al. (1987) conducted the first controlled weapon focus experiments. Participants watched a slideshow of an individual either paying for food with a check or pointing a gun at a cashier. The scene provided participants with the ability to view a variety of stimuli, including the perpetrator, name of the restaurant, and color of clothing. For the first experiment, eye movements of participants were tracked while they viewed the slideshow. Upon completion of the slideshow, a multiple-choice questionnaire was given to participants to test their memory for details of the event. They were then presented with a 12–person perpetrator-present lineup and asked to make an identification. Results indicated participants focused more and longer on the weapon, and they answered fewer questions correctly in the weapon condition. However, weapon presence had no effect on eyewitness identification from the lineup. This could have been due to low power in the first experiment, which led them to conduct a second experiment with a larger sample size. Eye tracker data was not collected in Experiment 2. Contrary to

Experiment 1, there was a weapon focus effect for identification, such that the perpetrator was identified less often in the weapon condition. In a replication of Experiment 1, the questionnaire data showed that those in the weapon condition were less accurate.

The arousal hypothesis of the weapon focus effect. One of the first explanations for the

WFE is the arousal hypothesis (Flowe, Hope, & Hillstrom, 2013; Loftus et al., 1987). This hypothesis states that if a witness sees a weapon, he or she will experience arousal that narrows their attentional focus to the weapon. The arousal hypothesis stems from Easterbrook’s (1959) cue utilization hypothesis. According to this hypothesis, emotional arousal reduces the range of environmental cues used. Cue utilization is the sum of all environmental cues used by an

7 individual in any situation, including cues the individual observed, associated with, responded to, or maintained. The range of cue utilization shrinks when peripheral cues reduce due to central cues that are drawing the most attention. The cue utilization hypothesis can be tested by manipulating the amount of arousal or stress in an eyewitness situation. In a low or moderate arousal situation, the witness should be more likely to focus on the perpetrator’s face and, therefore, improve identification accuracy. In a high arousal scenario, the witness may pay more attention to the weapon, which will impair identification accuracy for the perpetrator but enhance their memory for the weapon (Tooley, Brigham, Maass, & Bothwell, 1987).

Tooley et al. (1987) investigated the possibility that a weapon could hinder the ability to encode facial features of the perpetrator holding the weapon. The participants (all Caucasian females) were given a phony visual discrimination game containing photos of target individuals.

They were exposed to either a high arousal condition (white noise and the threat of a shock) or a low arousal (no white noise or threat of shock) condition. Participants in the high arousal condition were told that their chances of receiving a shock increased with an incorrect answer, however, no electric shock was given. The white noise was presented at 90 decibels through headphones. The low arousal condition did not have white noise or consequences for incorrect answers, and electric shock was not mentioned. Each group viewed 24 photos: six African

American males holding a weapon, six Caucasian males holding a weapon, six African

American males holding a nonweapon object, and six Caucasian males holding a nonweapon object. In one of four attentional focus groups, the participants were told to look at a particular area of the slide for clues to help them decide which button to press (A, B, C, or D). The attentional focus groups included: (a) face focus (looked at target’s face), (b) hand focus (looked at what the person was holding), (c) background focus (looked in the background for clues), and

(d) free focus (told the clues were somewhere in the slide). Unbeknownst to the participants, the clues did not exist. The inspection phase of the slides lasted for 10 s per slide. After viewing a slide, a 5 s interval occurred to let participants decide which button to press. Following the inspection phase participants viewed 72 color facial photographs, which included the 24 target individuals presented for 10 s each. After each picture, the participants indicated “yes” that they had seen the person before or “no” they had not seen the person.

The high arousal group performed significantly better than the low arousal group (Tooley et al., 1987). The face focus group had higher recognition scores than the hand focus group.

There was no significant difference in recognition rates between hand, background, and free focus groups. Facial recognition was higher in the weapon absent condition. African-American targets were identified more frequently than Caucasian targets. Recognition rates were lower for participants focusing on something other than the face. Participants in the free focus condition split their focus between the hand and the background. Recognition accuracy was worst when the target held a weapon, indicating that weapon presence attracts attention even if the witness focuses on other cues. This WFE also occurred with no actual threat to the witness, in contrast to

Easterbrook’s cue utilization hypothesis.

Kramer, Buckhout, and Eugenio (1990) used slideshows to investigate weapon focus and arousal. A mock crime scenario in Experiment 1 consisted of 42 slides of a staged assault. A

Weapon High Visibility (WHV) group saw three men playing cards at a table. Two men accused the winner of cheating, and after a brief argument, the two men left; the winner stayed to count his money. Soon, another man holding a bottle at his chest entered the room. He approached the winner, struck him over the head with the bottle, took the money, and left the room. The slides were the same for the Weapon Low Visibility (WLV) group except the bottle was held behind

9 his back for the first several seconds before being shown. The entire presentation lasted 70 s, and the perpetrator’s face was visible for 17 s. The weapon was visible for 12 s in the WHV condition and 4 s in the WLV. A recognition test was given to participants using a 6-person perpetrator-present lineup. Participants were informed that the perpetrator may or may not be in the lineup. Next, participants answered questionnaires about the perpetrator and witness demographics. Lastly, they completed an arousal scale asking them to rate their feelings from 1

(bored) to 7 (anxious) on a Likert scale.

The WHV group provided a less accurate description of the perpetrator compared to the

WLV group. However, there was a floor effect concerning eyewitness identification, such that neither group identified the perpetrator at a rate above chance. All WHV participants identified the weapon correctly, compared to 42.9% of WLV participants. The WHV group also reported higher arousal levels. These results indicate that high visibility of a perpetrator’s weapon negatively affects the accuracy of the witness’s descriptions. Also, a weapon focus effect occurred even when the arousal level reported by the witness was low.

The unusualness hypothesis of the weapon focus effect. A second explanation for the

WFE, the unusualness hypothesis, states that if a weapon viewed by a witness is interpreted as unusual in the context of the situation, then they will focus on it longer and more frequently than on other stimuli (e.g., Harada, Hakoda, Kuroki, & Mitsudo, 2015). Pickel (1998) examined threat and unusualness of an object in the context of a situation (e.g., a raw, whole chicken in a hair salon). Participants watched a 2 min video of a perpetrator entering a hair salon and speaking to the receptionist. In four conditions, the man walked up to the receptionist, speaks with her, and holds an object of varying threat and unusualness level in his hand. In a fifth condition, he did not hold an object. Items held by the man included: (a) a pair of scissors, (b) a gun, (c) a man’s

10 wallet, or (d) a raw, whole, chicken. While watching the video, participants were told to imagine that they were a customer in the salon. After the video, a filler task was completed, and then a questionnaire was given asking them to remember as much as they could about the video. Next, a

5-person perpetrator-present lineup was shown to participants. They were told that the perpetrator may or may not be in the lineup and were asked to either choose a picture or a “not pictured” option. Less was remembered about the perpetrator if the object was unusual. There was no interaction between threat and unusualness of the object. Correct identifications of the perpetrator did not vary by condition. Overall, 39% of participants correctly identified the perpetrator in a lineup. Confidence levels were higher for those who made a correct identification than those who made an incorrect identification.

In another investigation of unusualness and threat, participants watched one of four videos showing two individuals in an office (Mitchell, Livosky, & Mather, 1998). One man leaves and the other walks across the room to a desk and picks up a piece of paper. From this point, each video varied in the presentation of an object and a perpetrator. A third individual enters the room carrying a briefcase. As he approaches the man at the desk he reaches into the briefcase and pulls out either: (a) his hand (for a handshake), (b) a stalk of celery (unusual), (c) a handgun (non-threatening), or (d) a handgun (threatening manner). The video lasted 1 min 30 s, with the perpetrator visible approximately 7 s. After the video, participants rated their feelings during the video and answered questions about their memory of the event. Recognition was significantly worse for the celery group than the control group and the nonthreatening gun condition. The celery group also reported higher affect than the other groups. Unusualness of the celery impaired memory, but a gun did not.

Pickel (1999) continued to study unusualness and context as a cause of the WFE. Rather than manipulate participant arousal, threaten them in some way, or change objects carried by the perpetrator, Pickel manipulated location. Participants watched a 2 min video showing a man and woman at a sporting event. The man approached the woman with a gun and was visible for approximately 20 s. She talked to him, gave him money, and then he walked away. The event took place next to a wooded area of a parking lot at a baseball game or a shooting range. In the high threat condition, the woman expresses fear as the man points a gun at her. In the low threat condition, the gun was pointed down, and they were having a friendly conversation. After the video, a filler task was given for 10 min, and then participants were presented with a questionnaire about their memory of the video. Lastly, participants chose a man out of a 5-person perpetrator-present lineup. When the weapon did not match with the context, a WFE occurred, but not when it was appropriate. Almost all participants interpreted the high threat condition as a robbery. The results do not support the hypothesis that weapons are threatening and therefore attract attention.

Pickel, Ross, and Truelove (2006) designed two experiments to determine whether weapons automatically capture attention. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two groups. Both groups were told they would be listening to a lecture given by a graduate student.

They were told to listen and pay attention as if it was an actual class lecture. One lecture was on weapon focus (weapon focus group) and the other on eyewitness confidence (control group). The entire lecture lasted 90 s. In both groups, after the lecture began, a man (the perpetrator) walked into the room and began talking loudly. He was visible for 30 s and then left. In one of four scenarios he carried either a: (a) black 9mm semi-automatic pistol, (b) textbook, (c) black 9mm semi-automatic pistol with bright yellow tape wrapped around the barrel, or (d) 19th century

12 single shot percussion pistol replica. Witnesses completed the Activation-Deactivation Check

List (AD ACL) Short Form to report their emotional states. Next, a memory questionnaire was administered to serve as a manipulation check. One section asked about perpetrator appearance; another asked if he was holding anything in his hand. If the answer was yes to carrying an object, further questions were asked, such as what it was, what did he do with it, and what was the size, color, and shape of the object. The first hypothesis was that witnesses in the control lecture

(eyewitness confidence) would generate better descriptions of a weapon. There were no significant differences in object descriptions between the weapon focus and control lecture, supporting the argument that attention is not immediately drawn to a weapon. The antique gun produced more incorrect answers than the standard gun in the control group. The second hypothesis that unusual weapons attract more attention was not supported.

Using a new approach to assess the effect of threatening and unusual objects, Hope and

Wright (2007) required participants to perform a secondary task while simultaneously viewing a series of slides. They also sought to determine if a reduction in attentional capacity could account for the weapon focus effect. They hypothesized that reaction time to a critical slide in the weapon and novel conditions would be slower due to attentional demands. Participants viewed

13 slides of a male perpetrator in a grocery store. In one of the slides, he removes an object from his pocket. The object shown for 4 s was a gun (threatening, weapon condition), a feather duster

(novel, unusual condition), or a wallet (non-threatening, control condition). Participants worked on a secondary task of monitoring numbers appearing on the screen at the same time as they viewed the slides to compare attentional demands on the different conditions. After the completion of the slideshow, participants worked on a 20 min distractor task. Next, they answered 22 forced-choice recognition questions about the object and were asked what they

13 thought the man was doing. Reaction time to the control condition was faster than for the weapon and unusual conditions. Those in the weapon condition provided a better description of the object. The results were similar to those of Loftus et al. (1987), indicating that when a weapon is exposed, participants focused on it more and for longer periods than when exposed to other non-threatening objects, resulting in the incorrect identification of a suspect from a lineup.

Carlson and Carlson (2012) conducted the largest (N = 600) WFE study to that point.

They included both perpetrator-present and -absent lineups in order to paint a more complete picture of overall eyewitness identification accuracy. They hypothesized that the WFE would be eliminated if the perpetrator has a distinctive facial feature. Participants watched a 30 s mock crime video of a perpetrator holding either a beer bottle, a shotgun, or nothing. A filler task was presented after the video, and then participants were shown a 6-person perpetrator-present or - absent lineup. The WFE was replicated when there was no distinctive feature on the perpetrator's face.

The same mock crime videos and lineups as Carlson and Carlson (2012) and a larger sample size (N = 2675) were used by Carlson and Carlson (2014) to investigate three hypotheses.

The three hypotheses were: (a) a simultaneous lineup would produce higher discriminability (i.e., the ability to discriminate between guilty and innocent suspects) than a sequential lineup, (b) weapon presence would reduce discriminability, and (c) the weapon focus effect would be eliminated when a distinctive feature was added to the face of the perpetrator. The results replicated those of Carlson and Carlson (2012), as well as extended the hypotheses to include

Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analysis to evaluate discriminability using both simultaneous and sequential lineups.

In another large scale (N = 1263) experiment, Erickson, Lampinen, and Leding (2014) investigated the WFE and unusualness using perpetrator-present and -absent lineups. Participants first received training for bartending using an online program. They were also told their memory would later be tested for the cost of drinks. After completing the training, they were presented with a series of slides. The slides show an individual at the bar ordering a beer. The individual handed the bartender money to pay for the beer and at this point, participants were asked how much change should be given in return. They watched six slides of the same process and then a slide appeared with a young woman for 2 s. A total of nine slides were viewed. In one of three conditions, the woman held either an empty glass (normal object), a realistic airsoft gun

(weapon), or a rubber chicken (unusual object) towards the camera. Participants watched six drink orders and were then told that a crime was committed by the last person. A perpetrator- present or -absent lineup was presented, and participants attempted to identify the person who made the last drink order. They were also informed that the individual may or may not be in the lineup. Lastly, participants answered questions about how much attention they paid to the object, how surprising or frightening it was, and its qualities. In line with the hypothesis, the WFE was replicated. Other results include: (a) the unusual and weapon conditions were more surprising than the normal condition, (b) the normal and unusual condition objects were less threatening than the weapon condition, and (c) the weapon and objects in the unusual condition objects received more attention than the normal object.

In summary, two primary explanations for the WFE are arousal and unusualness, with the latter receiving more support in the literature. However, this could be due in part to the difficulty

(due to ethical problems) in recreating sufficient arousal or stress for participants in a laboratory

15 setting. The literature has featured manipulations of several variables, but two variables that warrant more investigation of their role in the WFE are exposure time and weapon concealment.

Law enforcement and the weapon focus effect. The weapon focus effect is not limited to civilian eyewitnesses. Beehr, Ivanitskaya, Glaser, Erofeev, and Canali (2004) studied the weapon focus effect as it pertains to law enforcement officers. Their belief was that regardless of weapon visibility, people focus on the source of the threat. This focus would lead to better encoding and memory for items near the focus point. Beehr et al. (2004) investigated officers’ memory for objects and both armed and unarmed individuals during a simulation of a stressful event. Officers were randomly assigned to one of three conditions. One condition involved the officers going through a 6 min 15 s live simulation. The live simulation took place inside a shooting range and consisted of a porch, hallway, and four rooms. Inside the rooms were four life size mechanical posters aiming guns at the officers. The officer’s task was to clear all dangerous individuals from the house. When the officers needed to discharge their weapons, they were required to shoot the shotgun until all the ammunition was gone and then switch to their handgun. After finishing the simulation, the officers reloaded the weapons and removed their protective gear. Officers were then assigned to a rehearsal or no rehearsal condition. Those in the rehearsal condition completed a questionnaire (the rehearsal) about the simulation. In a second condition, officers watched a video of a police trainer going through the simulation. Officers assigned to the third condition watched a silent, non-shooting video of the simulation with no one going through it. Twelve weeks after the simulation all the officers received a questionnaire in the mail. They completed the questionnaire and returned it. The questions involved memory for unarmed people, objects, and confidence in their memory. The simulation and rehearsal condition reported better memory for armed people. The rehearsal condition had a better memory

16 for unarmed individuals and objects. Overall, memory was best for objects closest to the point of threat.

Simulations were also utilized by Hulse and Memon (2006). Expert officers view a simulated event in order to study the effects of arousal and weapon presence on their memory of an event. Before the simulation, an initial measurement of state anxiety and heart rate were taken. Officers were then assigned to either a weapon present (shoot) or weapon absent (no shoot) condition. In pairs, officers witnessed a simulated domestic dispute in a parking lot from a distance of 5 m away. A man and a woman parked a car and then the perpetrator (another woman) parked beside them. The perpetrator got out and had a verbal confrontation with the man and woman. The confrontation escalated into a physical altercation. The physical altercation was minor (i.e., pushing) in the no shoot scenario, and the perpetrator drove away without posing any threat. In the shooting scenario, the perpetrator presented a handgun and pointed it at the man during a physical struggle. At this point, the officers could have shot the perpetrator. If they did not, then the perpetrator shot once at the man and once at the woman before driving away. The simulation lasted approximately 1 min. The perpetrator was visible for 30 s and her gun, in the shooting scenario, was visible for approximately 5 s. After the simulation, officers removed their gear and completed another measure of emotional arousal. Next, they completed a filler task, health questionnaire, and a 10–15 min structured recall interview. After a second filler task, the officer was presented with an 8-person perpetrator-absent lineup where they were asked to either make an identification or reject the lineup. After the lineup decision, they rated their confidence in the decision.

Officers in the shoot condition reported more emotional arousal, had higher heart rates and recalled fewer details of the event than those in the no shoot condition (Hulse & Memon,

2006). All of these findings supported the predictions of Hulse and Memon (2006). Weapon presence did not have an effect on recall for the perpetrator. Lineup choice did not produce a weapon focus effect. However, those in the shoot condition were more accurate in rejecting the lineup (74%) than the no shoot condition (61%). Hulse and Memon (2006) thought this could be due to experienced officers being more cautious because they understand the impact of an incorrect decision. Cautiousness was supported by the finding that those in the shoot condition were less confident in the lineup decisions.

Vickers and Lewinski (2012) designed a simulation similar to scenarios encountered by police officers in the real world. Scenarios where the situation is unfolding quickly, important cues are visible for only a brief moment, and decisions on whether to shoot their gun or not must be made quickly under extreme pressure. In a 1 min simulation, the perpetrator entered an office and approached the receptionist. An officer was standing guard 7 m away. The perpetrator has a conversation with the receptionist and becomes angry. He slams his hand on the counter and raises his voice. In the final 2 s of the simulation, the perpetrator either pulls a gun or a cell phone from under his jacket. He quickly turned and shot the officer or aimed the cell phone in a way so that it appeared to shoot. Critical cues were placed for brief periods of time at the beginning and end of the scenario. The perpetrator’s coat was open for 3 s at the beginning. Each officer participated in five gun and two cell phone conditions. The first round was always a gun condition; the other four were randomly assigned. Shot accuracy and location of the shots were recorded, and the officers wore an eye tracker device to track gaze fixations in the first and last 7 s of the simulation. There were significant differences due to expertise and decision making.

Expert officers shot at the perpetrator 12.9% of the time, while rookie officers shot 64.51% of the time. Expert officers fired faster than rookie officers by 179.05 ms. Rookie officers fired

18 approximately 13.26 ms slower. Fixations in the first and last 7 s were analyzed as well. Expert officers fixated more on the perpetrator's weapon while rookie officers alternated more between their gun and the perpetrator. Results indicated that rookie officers focused more on non-weapon locations of the perpetrator while expert officers fixated on locations of a potential hidden weapon. From these results, it could be concluded that because expert officers focus more on the perpetrator’s gun or phone, they could have a reduced ability to identify a face at a later time. For rookie officers, because they fixated on their gun before shooting they may not be able to determine whether or not the perpetrator brandished a weapon. Vickers and Lewinski (2012) stated that more research is needed in this area.

Weapon concealment. Whether or not a WFE occurs when a weapon is concealed at the time of a crime has not been thoroughly investigated. Several studies have investigated weapon visibility, but not concealment per se. Cutler et al. (1987b) manipulated variables related to the encoding, storage, and retrieval of information. One of their goals was to determine which conditions present during a crime impair an eyewitness’s memory. Participants watched one of four videos of a perpetrator entering a liquor store, demanding money, and threatening to shoot the clerk. Variables known to affect identification accuracy were manipulated, including weapon visibility. Half of the videos showed a perpetrator visibly displaying a gun. In the other half, the gun was hidden in the perpetrator’s jacket. After the video, participants were asked to identify the perpetrator from either a perpetrator-present or -absent lineup and complete a questionnaire.

Ninety-three of the 165 participants viewed a perpetrator-absent lineup; 32% correctly rejected the lineup, and 68% identified a foil. Another 72 participants viewed a perpetrator-present lineup where 43% made a correct identification, 52% made an incorrect identification, and 5% incorrectly rejected the lineup.

Carlson, Dias, et al. (2016) investigated the weapon focus effect and concealment. They compared three conditions (no weapon, visible weapon, and concealed weapon) across two lineup types (perpetrator-absent and -present). In the visible weapon condition, the perpetrator openly brandished a gun for the witness to see. In the concealed condition, the perpetrator simply mentions he had a gun in his pocket, and there was a visible bulge. The primary hypothesis was that a concealed weapon would produce a weapon focus effect. They created three mock crime videos featuring a young woman walking towards her apartment door while talking on the phone. As she looked through her purse for her keys, a perpetrator approached her from behind, covered her mouth, and instructed her to be quiet. In the weapon visible and concealed conditions, he announced that he had a gun. The perpetrator took the purse and ran off. The video was approximately 13 s in length. Participants watched the video, worked on a distractor task, and then viewed a perpetrator-absent or -present lineup. They were also informed that the perpetrator may or may not be in the lineup. After their lineup decision, they entered their confidence.

Carlson, Dias, et al. (2016) found that the visible weapon condition yielded fewer correct identifications than the weapon concealed and no weapon conditions. No difference was found between concealed and no weapon conditions. The results, in line with other WFE studies, show that when a weapon is shown during a crime, the eyewitness’s ability to identify the perpetrator is compromised, and there is a greater likelihood that a foil will be identified in a perpetrator- absent lineup. They found no WFE when the gun was concealed, even though most participants in this condition reported after the video that the perpetrator had a gun.

The literature shows that the WFE can occur in a variety of crime scene situations. One situation not represented adequately in the literature is the presence of a concealed weapon. This

20 dissertation expanded on weapon concealment during a crime by extending the length of the video to allow longer encoding time. The goal of the criminal justice system is to put the guilty behind bars. Applied research in system and estimator variables is necessary to help ensure innocent individuals are not put behind bars. Statistics from the FBI (2014) and the Innocence

Project (2016) are reminders that there is more knowledge to gain.

Exposure Time to the Perpetrator

Shapiro and Penrod (1986) conducted a meta-analysis of 128 eyewitness identification and facial recognition studies. They analyzed variables that impact identification accuracy (e.g., depth of processing, exposure time, and target-absent or -present lineup). They found that as time spent viewing a perpetrator increases, correct identification rates also increase. Another significant finding involved pose: Perpetrators viewed from the front resulted in fewer false alarms compared to other poses (e.g., profile).

Memon, Hope, and Bull (2003) examined the effects of exposure time to a face during an eyewitness incident on identification accuracy and confidence reported by older (59-81) and younger (17-25) adults. The researchers hypothesized that longer exposure to a face would increase correct identifications in a perpetrator-present lineup and increase false identifications in a perpetrator-absent lineup. This hypothesis was based on the idea that participants would reason that they should recognize the person because the face was viewed for a longer period, thereby making them more likely to identify someone. Participants watched a mock crime video in which they were exposed to the perpetrator’s face for either 12 or 45 s. After watching the video, they completed a series of filler questionnaires for approximately 40 min and then were presented with a perpetrator-present or -absent lineup. After making a lineup decision, participants rated their confidence in the decision. Lastly, they completed a free recall task of the crime video.

There was a significant effect of exposure time to the perpetrator’s face on identification accuracy. Longer exposure time increased correct identification from the perpetrator-present lineup in both young and older participants compared to short exposure. Moreover, in perpetrator-absent lineups, false identification rates were higher in the short exposure condition for both age groups compared to the long exposure condition.

In an archival study, Valentine, Pickering, and Darling (2003) collected data from an identification room in London from January–September 2000. Six hundred and forty witnesses viewed 314 lineups and completed questionnaires. An officer provided details about the witness, the perpetrator, the crime, the witness’s opportunity to view the perpetrator, and the witness’s description of the perpetrator. Data were analyzed for several variables affecting eyewitness identification including the amount of time the witness had to view the perpetrator (four levels ranging from less than 10 s to more than 1 min) and if the perpetrator carried a weapon (gun, knife, other, none). Of witnesses who did not know the perpetrator, 20% identified a foil, approximately 40% identified the suspect, and approximately 40% did not make a choice. When a weapon was present, 15.9% identified a foil, 42% identified the suspect, and 42% did not make an identification. The absence of a weapon resulted in 40.2% identifying the suspect, 23.7% identifying a foil, and 36.1% making no identification. Overall, weapon presence during a crime did not affect suspect identifications. However, if a weapon was absent, a foil was more likely to be chosen. This result is in contrast to the weapon focus literature. Of those who had less than 1 minute to view the perpetrator, 32.2% identified the suspect and 22.6% chose a foil; of those who had more than 1 minute, 45.3% identified the suspect and 19.6% chose a foil.

The work of Shapiro and Penrod (1986) was expanded upon by Bornstein, Deffenbacher,

Penrod, and McGorty (2012) with another meta-analysis. Criteria included: (a) participants

22 exposed to an unknown person in the first phase, (b) a retrieval phase had to follow where participants made recognition judgments for lineups, and (c) lineups had to contain old and new faces. Out of 25 articles on exposure time, almost all of them had a single exposure to the perpetrator. Exposure time to the perpetrator ranged from 0.7–3570 s. They found more correct identifications with longer exposure time. Only three of the studies manipulated exposure time and lineup type. Evidence from these three studies suggests that longer exposure to a perpetrator at the time of encoding benefits identification more in a perpetrator-present lineup than a perpetrator-absent. Correct and false identification rates were changed to proportion correct due to not all studies including both perpetrator-present and -absent lineups. The mean effect size for increased facial encoding was r = .24 for the perpetrator-present lineup and r = .11 for perpetrator-absent. They argued that short exposure times might prevent deep processing. If the exposure time is longer, then witnesses may process the situation more deeply and pick up on stimuli not noticed with short duration. In summation, correct identification rates increase when a witness has a longer view of a perpetrator. Borstein et al. (2012) only identified three studies that manipulated exposure time and lineup type. The study compared short and long exposure time for the perpetrator in addition to weapon concealment. Perpetrator-present and -absent lineups were also used.

The first published study manipulating exposure time to a perpetrator and weapon presence using perpetrator-present and -absent lineups was conducted by Carlson, Young, et al.

(2016). They recorded a 25 s mock crime video of a woman sitting on a park bench. In the background, the perpetrator is hiding behind a tree. He then moves towards the woman, steals her purse, and runs away. Exposure time to perpetrator and weapon presence was manipulated across four conditions: (a) perpetrator exposure of 10 s with no weapon, (b) perpetrator exposure

23 of 10 s with weapon in right hand the entire video, (c) perpetrator exposure of 10 seconds with weapon in pocket for 8 s, then drawn and pointed at victim just before grabbing her purse and fleeing, and (d) perpetrator exposure of 3 s with weapon in right hand the entire video. In no condition was the weapon concealed the entire time. Participants (N = 1415) were randomly assigned to one of the four conditions. Via SurveyMonkey they watched the mock crime video, followed by a 5-10 min distractor task. Next, they were presented with a lineup, informed the perpetrator may or may not be in the lineup, and told they must either make a choice or reject the lineup. After making a lineup decision participants rated their confidence in the lineup decision.

Lastly, they answered 11 forced-report questions to test their memory of the video.

Eyewitness recall results revealed 3 s exposure to the perpetrator resulted in lower recall than the 10 s condition. Participants also gave more accurate descriptions of the video in the no weapon condition. A WFE was found for recall in the condition where the perpetrator is visible for a few seconds before the showing of a weapon. However, regardless of the effect on recall, there was no effect on eyewitness identification: either for correct and foil IDs from perpetrator-present lineups or false IDs from perpetrator-absent lineups. Finally, the confidence- accuracy relationship was fairly strong across all conditions. Participants reporting low confidence generally had low accuracy; those reporting high confidence generally were accurate.

Carlson, Young, et al. (2016) suggested that the WFE may be smaller or even nonexistent in crimes of short duration. As suggested by Bornstein et al. (2012), police should ask eyewitnesses about crime duration.

Hypotheses

The first hypothesis was that the WFE would be replicated in the visible weapon condition under a bad, but not a good view of the perpetrator. In other words, those in the visible

24 weapon condition should be less likely to identify the perpetrator from the perpetrator-present lineup, and more likely to identify someone from the perpetrator-absent lineup, compared to both the concealed and weapon absent conditions. A good view of the perpetrator should allow participants to encode the perpetrator’s face sufficiently, regardless of weapon presence. They could adjust to the presence of the weapon after several seconds, allowing them to attend to the perpetrator’s face. This should prevent a WFE for the good view condition. Carlson, Dias, et al.

(2016) did not find a WFE in the concealed weapon condition. Therefore a second prediction is that there will be no WFE for the concealed condition of the proposed study, for either good or bad view of the perpetrator. The concealed conditions should perform equivalently to the weapon absent conditions. Finally, a good view of the perpetrator should out-perform bad view regardless of weapon presence, such that correct identification (of the perpetrator) should be higher, and false identifications (from the perpetrator-absent lineup) should be lower.

Chapter 2

METHOD

Participants

Participants (N = 607; 139 males, 453 females, 15 other or no response) were enrolled in a class with research participation as a course requirement or an extra credit option. Approval was obtained from the institutional review board.

Materials

Six mock crime videos were recorded using a digital camera on a tripod from a third person perspective. The bad view allowed participants to view the perpetrator from a distance of approximately 2–4 m. Bad view videos begin with the perpetrator walking from behind a fence towards a house. He looks in a house window and then walks over to a door. Just as he looks in the door, the garage door begins to open. The perpetrator quickly hides behind a pillar and is not visible. A car pulls into the garage and a young woman talking on her phone exits the car. She ends the phone call and opens the back of the car. As she reaches for a grocery bag the perpetrator comes up behind her, grabs her arm, and says, “Don’t move, I’ve got a gun, give me your money, don’t turn around.” The good view videos contain all of this footage, but adds several seconds at the beginning, in which the perpetrator lurks around the side of the house and looks in a window. In the visible weapon condition (both good and bad views), the perpetrator is clearly holding a gun by his side. The concealed weapon condition features the perpetrator holding the gun in his pocket, creating an obvious bulge. Finally, in the no weapon condition, the perpetrator is not holding anything. The same scripted actions and spoken lines are executed by the actors in all conditions, except that the perpetrator does not mention he has a gun in the no weapon condition. The video ends when the perpetrator runs off with the victim’s purse and is no

26 longer visible to the camera. In the bad view conditions, the perpetrator’s face is visible for approximately 25 s. The good view conditions have an additional 10 s of a close-up (within 1 m) view of the perpetrator’s face at the beginning.

A mugshot of the perpetrator was taken a few days after the videos were recorded. He was wearing different clothing than what was worn during the video. A basic description of the perpetrator was written that included the characteristics Caucasian male, age 20-25, approximately 5’11” tall, with short dark hair. Online databases for corrections facilities were used to find mugshots of foils that looked similar to the perpetrator. These mugshots were used to create 10 lineups for a fair lineup assessment. Five of the lineups included the perpetrator and five did not. The lineups were presented to a pilot group of participants (N = 30) that did not participate in the experiment. Participants in the fair lineup assessment were given the description of the perpetrator prior to each of the 10 lineups. They were then asked to choose the person who best fit the description. Their choices were entered into a program to determine which two lineups were most fair (i.e., the more distributed the choices in a given lineup, the fairer it is). The perpetrator-present and perpetrator-absent lineup determined to be the most fair were used in the experiment.

Procedure

Participants took part in the experiment online through SurveyMonkey. Each participant read an informed consent form and then was randomly assigned to one of six mock crime video conditions (weapon visible, weapon concealed, or no weapon; good versus bad view of the perpetrator). After watching the video, participants worked on a word jumble distractor task for 5 min. This distractor task prevented the participants from maintaining a visual image of the perpetrator in working memory. Next, participants were randomly assigned to view a

27 perpetrator-present or -absent 6-person simultaneous lineup (see Appendix B and C for examples). Following their lineup decision, participants were asked to rate their confidence in increments of 10% from a 0-100%. Finally, participants were asked several questions about the video and several demographics questions (see Appendix C).

Design and Analysis

The experiment was a 3 (video: weapon visible, weapon concealed, or no weapon) x 2

(view of perpetrator's face: good or bad) x 2 (lineup: perpetrator-present or -absent) design.

Binary data for correct and incorrect identifications were analyzed using the logistic regression and chi-square non-parametric statistics.

Chapter 3

RESULTS

A total of 607 participants took part in the study. Eighteen participants did not complete the study and were therefore not included in the analysis. See Table 1 for all lineup decisions broken-down by condition. There were three types of data for analysis: (a) number of correct identifications (IDs) versus all other lineup decisions from the perpetrator-present lineup, (b) number of false IDs from the perpetrator-absent lineup versus number of rejections of that lineup, and (c) the proportion of questions about the mock crime video answered correctly, as a proxy for overall memory recall accuracy.

Identifications from Perpetrator-Absent vs. Perpetrator-Present Lineups

I will first describe the logistic regression results for the perpetrator-absent lineup (false

IDs), followed by the perpetrator-present lineup (correct IDs). The overall PA model was significant, χ2(3) = 9.44, p = .02. There was no interaction between weapon presence and view of perpetrator, Wald(1) = 2.37, p = .12. There was a main effect of good versus bad view of the perpetrator, such that the bad view created more false IDs, Wald(1) = 4.00, p = .045. There was also a main effect of weapon presence on false IDs, Wald(1) = 4.51, p = .03. Contrary to the hypotheses, there were more false IDs in the no weapon condition compared to the concealed weapon condition, χ2(1, N = 189) = 4.49, p = .03, ϕ = .15. There was no difference in false IDs between the visible weapon condition and both the concealed, χ2(1, N = 196) = 0.69, p = .41, ϕ =

.06, and no weapon conditions, χ2(1, N = 195) = 1.76, p =.19, ϕ = .10.

The perpetrator-present lineup logistic regression yielded no effect of weapon presence

(Wald(1) = 0.37, p = .54) or perpetrator view (Wald(1) = 1.0. p = .75). Also, there was no interaction (Wald(1) = 0.02, p = .89).

Table 1

Identification and Rejection Rates across Conditions

Condition Perpetrator-Present Lineup Perpetrator-Absent Lineup Correct ID Rate Foil ID Rate Rejection Rate False ID Rate Rejection Rate No Weapon Good View .21 (10/47) .38 (18/47) .40 (19/47) .52 (26/50) .48 (24/50) Bad View .15 (8/53) .42 (22/53) .43 (23/53) .50 (22/44) .50 (22/44) Concealed Weapon Good View .31 (18/59) .32 (19/59) .37 (22/59) .26 (12/46) .74 (34/46) Bad View .22 (10/46) .48 (22/46) .30 (14/46) .45 (22/49) .55 (27/49) Visible Weapon Good View .25 (11/44) .32 (14/44) .43 (19/44) .36 (16/45) .64 (29/45) Bad View .31 (16/51) .45 (23/51) .24 (12/51) .46 (26/56) .54 (30/56) Notes: ID = identification; proportions based on number of participants per condition in parentheses

Signal Detection Analysis

Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analysis is the recommended approach for eyewitness identification data from lineups (see National Research Council, 2014). However, it requires hundreds of data points per cell of an experimental design. When a more limited set of data is available, Mickes, Moreland, Clark, and Wixted (2014) suggested using d’ instead (based on signal detection theory; see MacMillan & Creelman, 2005). This parameter represents overall eyewitness identification accuracy when taking into account identifications from both perpetrator-present and –absent lineups. A second parameter from signal detection theory, response bias, or criterion (c) is also important to estimate. It represents the overall likelihood of making an identification, regardless of the guilt or innocence of the suspect being identified.

Next, I describe my d’ results, followed by c.

As expected, the good view yielded higher accuracy (d’ = 0.67) compared to bad view (d’

= 0.38). When collapsed over quality of view, the concealed weapon (d’ = 0.75) and visible weapon conditions (d’ = 0.68) surprisingly yielded higher accuracy than the no weapon condition

(d’ = 0.13). When all conditions were broken-down, I found that the concealed weapon/good

30 view condition was the most accurate (d’ = 1.08), followed by the visible weapon/good view condition (d’ = 0.70), visible weapon/bad view condition (d’ = 0.66), concealed weapon/bad view (d’ = 0.40), no weapon/good view (d’ = 0.23), and no weapon/bad view (d’ = 0.03).

In terms of response bias (i.e., likelihood of making a suspect identification; lower c values indicate more liberal responding), the good view (c = 0.67) yielded more liberal responding than the bad view (c = 0.94). In other words, participants were more likely to identify a suspect, whether guilty or innocent, after having a better view of the perpetrator in the video.

They probably felt that they had a fairly strong memory, which made them more liberal choosers. Participants who saw a concealed weapon (c = 1.00) or no weapon (c = 0.98), were slightly more conservative compared to a visible weapon (c = 0.91). Overall the concealed weapon/good view condition (c = 1.08) and no weapon/bad view (c = 1.05) had the most conservative responding, followed by the visible weapon/good view (c = 1.03), concealed weapon/bad view (c = 0.98), no weapon/good view (c = 0.91), and finally the visible weapon/bad view (c = 0.82).

Eyewitness Recall

A two-way factorial ANOVA was conducted to examine the effects of weapon presence and view of the perpetrator on the proportion of mock crime video questions answered correctly

(see Table 2). Most questions involved describing the perpetrator, what he was wearing, and whether or not he had a gun (Appendix D). There was no interaction between weapon presence and view of perpetrator on proportion of video questions answered correctly (F(2,589) = 0.82, p

= .44, partial ŋ² = .003). As predicted, there was a higher proportion of questions answered correctly after the good view (.76) compared to the bad view (.72), F(1,589) = 8.99, p = .003, partial ŋ² = .02. There was also a main effect of weapon presence (F(2,589) = 9.58, p < .001,

31 partial ŋ² = .03). Post hoc analyses with Bonferroni correction revealed that, contrary to one of the predictions, the proportion of video questions answered correctly was higher in the visible weapon condition (.77) than the concealed condition (.69), p < .001. However, as predicted, the no weapon condition (.75) also yielded a higher proportion of questions answered correctly compared to the concealed condition, p < .001. Contrary to predictions, there was no difference in recall accuracy between visible weapon and no weapon conditions.

Table 2

Recall Accuracy Rates across Conditions

Condition Recall Accuracy No Weapon Good View .76 (.02) Bad View .73 (.03) Concealed Weapon Good View .73 (.02) Bad View .65 (.02) Visible Weapon Good View .78 (.05) Bad View .75 (.02) Note. Standard error in parentheses.

Chapter 4

DISCUSSION

This study extended the work of Carlson, Dias et al. (2016) and Carlson, Young et al.

(2016) to contribute more to the literature on the weapon focus effect (WFE). I tested three hypotheses to determine how weapon presence and view of the perpetrator affect eyewitness identification. First, I predicted that the WFE would be replicated in the visible weapon condition when participants had a bad view of the perpetrator, but not a good view. Second, I expected that there would be no WFE when the weapon was concealed, for either good or bad view of the perpetrator. And lastly, I hypothesized that those presented with the good view of the perpetrator would out-perform those presented with the bad view, regardless of weapon presence. Many weapon focus studies have utilized only perpetrator-present lineups (e.g., Kramer et al. 1990;

Loftus et al., 1987; Pickel, 1999), which rarely results in a WFE. Only a handful of studies have investigated the WFE using both perpetrator-present and -absent lineups (e.g., Erickson et al.,

2014; Carlson, Dias et al., 2016; Carlson, Young et al., 2016). The present study used both lineup types and found that manipulations of weapon presence and view of the perpetrator produced differences in identifications from the perpetrator-absent lineup but not the perpetrator- present lineup.

As expected, those presented with a bad view of the perpetrator were more likely to falsely identify a foil from the perpetrator-absent lineup. This is consistent with findings in the literature. Studies included in the meta-analysis by Shapiro and Penrod (1986) indicated shorter viewing time of the perpetrator increased false alarm rates. However, it was not expected that participants would have more false IDs when there was no weapon in the video, compared to the concealed condition. Similarly, Valentine et al. (2003) found that the absence of a weapon

33 increased the likelihood of choosing a foil from a lineup. An additional surprising finding in the current study was the visible weapon did not produce more false IDs than either concealed or no weapon conditions. This was surprising because, in a similarly designed study, Carlson, Dias, et al. (2016) found that the visible weapon produced fewer correct IDs compared to the concealed and no weapon conditions.

Overall, the concealed and visible weapon conditions produced higher accuracy than the no weapon condition, which was not expected. More specifically, the concealed weapon/good view was the most accurate and no weapon/bad view the least accurate. It is difficult to speculate why the visible weapon conditions produced higher accuracy as this is not what is found throughout the literature. Cutler et al. (1987b) manipulated weapon visibility with a partially visible weapon or a hidden weapon and found more typical findings; participants were more likely to make an incorrect ID in the perpetrator-present lineup up or choose a foil from the perpetrator-absent lineup. Carlson, Dias, et al. (2016) also reported fewer correct identifications in the visible weapon conditions, compared to the concealed and no weapon conditions. Carlson,

Young, et al. (2016), with either a 3 s view of face and weapon, 10 s view of face and weapon,

10 s view of the face and 2 s of the weapon, or 10 sec view of the face and no weapon condition, reported a greater proportion of correct IDs (from the perpetrator-present lineup) and correct rejections (from the perpetrator-absent lineup) in the no weapon condition.

Limitations

Unlike Carlson, Dias, et al. (2016) the present study did not find fewer correct IDs in the weapon concealed condition. The present study also did not find more correct IDs in the perpetrator-present lineup or correct rejections in the perpetrator-absent lineup with no weapon present. One speculation as to why the concealed and visible weapon conditions had higher

34 accuracy is that the mock crime video was longer (approximately 1 min) than the approximate 15 s video used by Carlson, Dias et al. (2016) and 25 s by Carlson, Young, et al. (2016). However,

Carlson, Young, et al. (2016) focused more on the distance between the perpetrator and weapon

(when presented) and the witness’ point-of-view rather than the video length as a whole.

Viewing a longer video may have allowed participants in the concealed weapon/good view to spend more time encoding the face of the perpetrator, especially if they did not believe he had a weapon, thus increasing their ability to correctly reject the perpetrator-absent lineup.

Another difference to note is that the present study did not have high power. Loftus et al.

(1987) did not find an effect of weapon presence in their first experiment with low power but the second experiment with higher power did yield an effect. Other studies with similar design features have also had high power (see Carlson & Carlson, 2012, 2014; Erickson et al., 2014,

Carlson, Dias, et al., 2016). With higher power, a greater reflection of the true effects of weapon concealment and exposure time on eyewitness identification could have been identified in the current study.

Another issue affecting the current study is a lack of research available on weapon concealment as it pertains to the WFE. The weapon focus literature suggests that a weapon must be present to produce a WFE. However, the literature has not fully addressed whether or not weapon concealment can also produce this effect. Until recently studies have used concealment as a substitute for visibility; Cutler et al. (1987b) included a partially visible weapon but not a fully concealed weapon. The limited research on weapon concealment also limits the knowledge of how an eyewitness interprets a concealed weapon. Previous studies of weapon visibility have asked participants to report affect (Mitchell et al., 1998), emotional states (Hulse & Memon,

2006; Pickel et al., 2006), or how much attention was paid to an object (Erickson et al., 2014).

Questions such as these, accompanied by confidence ratings, can give better insight into what is contributing to lineup choices in a concealed weapon condition, such as whether a criterion shift takes place in the concealed condition due to differences in arousal, novelty, or attention. As suggested by Fawcett et al. (2013), more research needs to be done in the area of weapon concealment.

Future Directions

Another question about concealment that remains to be explored is what happens if the witness is carrying a concealed weapon. Biggs, Brockmole, and Witt (2013) found that when participants were given a weapon to hold while viewing a crime, they spent more time focusing on faces instead of objects. Is a witness carrying a weapon more or less accurate? Or more or less confident in their decision making? Does carrying a weapon change where the eyewitness directs their attention? Fawcett et al. (2013) suggested that more research should compare concealed weapon conditions and weapon-absent conditions. Weapon concealment, as it pertains to the eyewitness identification, has yet to be fully investigated. Different types of concealment (e.g., pants pocket, inside of waist of pants in the front or the back, use or lack of use of the phrase “I have a gun”) and levels of concealment (i.e., partially visible) still need to be investigated.

An understanding of what participants were looking at in each of the conditions (weapon present, weapon concealed and no weapon) would help resolve this question of why the concealed weapon/good view out-performed the others. By tracking the visual allocations of an eyewitness, it may be possible to determine if gaze patterns of eyewitness’ vary depending on weapon presence. And if so, how do they differ?

Loftus et al. (1987) used a corneal reflection device designed in the 1970s to track eye movements and determined that participants focused longer and more often on the weapon.

Using modern eye tracking technology, Biggs et al. (2013) had participants view digital photographs of a person holding a weapon or neutral object (e.g., remote, drink, or bouquet of flowers) for 5s. They successfully replicated the work of Loftus et al. (1987) and confirmed that when the amount of time looking at a weapon increases, the time spent looking at faces is reduced.

Harada et al. (2015) used infrared eye-tracking technology to measure the area around a fixation point where information is being perceived and identified. The purpose was to determine if the area, referred to as the functional field of view, shrinks when a weapon is present or emotional arousal is increased. The results indicated that when a weapon was present, the participant’s functional field of view narrowed. However, unlike Biggs et al. (2013), the amount of time participants spent viewing a weapon (e.g., gun, knife) did not differ from time spent viewing control objects (e.g., cell phone, book, or wallet) presented. This was attributed to the pictures being presented for a brief presentation time (500 ms). Future studies should incorporate the use of mock crime videos rather than pictures, when using eye-tracking technology, to get a more realistic view of the visual allocation of an eyewitness during a crime.

Lastly, view of the perpetrator had two factors: distance and encoding time. In order to get a better explanation of the effect of view of the perpetrator, future studies should separate these variables into separate studies. A focusing on each factor separately will provide more specific detail of the roll each plays in eyewitness identification.

Modern technology has provided a more detailed account of the visual experience of an eyewitness during a crime, but there is still work to be done. Knowing what and where participants are focusing their gaze would help law enforcement create questions for better interviewing of an eyewitness. If law enforcement knew the full range of what is excluded or

37 included in the visual field, they could develop questioning techniques designed specifically for that unique viewing experience.

Conclusions

The problems associated with eyewitness identification have been investigated as early as

1907 (see Munsterberg, 1907). Over 100 years later researchers are still learning more about what contributes to misidentifications. Continual research into eyewitness identification and the weapon focus effect is crucial. Law enforcement agencies need a complete picture of all possible weapon presence situations and the extent to which they affect the ability of an eyewitness to make a correct identification and give an accurate description of the crime they witnessed.

REFERENCES

Beehr, T., Ivanitskaya, L., Glaser, K., Erofeev, D., & Canali K. (2004). Working in a violent

environment: The accuracy of police officers' reports about shooting incidents. Journal of

Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77, 217–235. doi:

10.1348/096317904774202153

Biggs, A. T., Brockmole, J. R., & Witt, J. K. (2013). Armed and attentive: Holding a weapon

can bias attentional priorities in scene viewing. Attention, Perception and Psychophysics,

75(8), 1715-1724. doi: 10.3758/s13414-013-0538-6

Borchard, E. M. (1932). Convicting the innocent. New York: Garden City Publishing.

Bornstein, B. H., Deffenbacher, K. A., Penrod, S. D., & McGorty, E. K. (2012). Effects of

exposure time and cognitive operations on facial identification accuracy: A meta-analysis of

two variables associated with initial memory strength. Psychology, Crime & Law, 18, 473–

490. doi: http://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2010.50845

Carlson, C. A., & Carlson, M. A. (2012). A distinctiveness-driven reversal of the weapon-focus

effect. Applied Psychology in Criminal Justice, 8(1), 35-53.

Carlson, C. A., & Carlson, M. A. (2014). An evaluation of lineup presentation, weapon presence,

and distinctive feature using ROC analysis. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and

Cognition. doi: 10.1016/j.jarmac.2014.03.004

Carlson, C. A., Dias, J. L., Weatherford, D. R., & Carlson, M. A. (2016). An investigation of the

weapon focus effect and the confidence–accuracy relationship for eyewitness

identification. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition,

doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2016.04.001

Carlson, C. A., Young, D. F., Weatherford, D. R., Carlson, M. A., Bednarz, J. E., & Jones, A. R.

(2016). The influence of perpetrator exposure time and weapon presence/timing on

eyewitness confidence and accuracy. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 30, 898–910. doi:

10.1002/acp.3275

Clark, S. E., Benjamin, A. S., Wixted, J. T., Mickes, L., & Gronlund, S. D. (2015). Eyewitness

identification and the accuracy of the criminal justice system. Policy Insights from the

Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2(1), 175-186. doi: 10.1177/2372732215602267

Cutler, B. L., & Penrod, S. D. (1988). Improving the reliability of eyewitness identification:

Lineup construction and presentation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(2), 281-290.

doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.73.2.281

Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Martens, T. K. (1987a). Improving the reliability of eyewitness

identification: Putting context into context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(2), 281-

290. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.73.2.281

Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Martens, T. K. (1987b). The reliability of eyewitness

identification: The role of system and estimator variables. Law and Human Behavior,

11(3), 233-258. doi: 10.1007/BF01044644

Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., O’Rourke, T. E., & Martens, T. K. (1986). Unconfounding the

effects of contextual cues on eyewitness identification accuracy. Social Behaviour, 1,

113-134.

Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Stuve, T. E. (1988). Juror decision making in eyewitness

identification cases. Law and Human Behavior, 12(1), 41-55. doi: 10.1007/BF01064273

Desmarais, S. L., & Read, J. D. (2011). After 30 years, what do we know about what jurors

know? A meta-analytic review of lay knowledge regarding eyewitness factors. Law and

Human Behavior, 35(3), 200-210. doi: 10.1007/s 10979-0 10-9232-6

Easterbrook, J. A. (1959). The effect of emotion on cue utilization and the organization of

behavior. Psychological Review, 66(3), 183-201. doi: 10.1037/h0047707

Erickson, W. B., Lampinen, J. M., & Leding, J. K. (2014). The weapon focus effect in target-

present and target-absent line-ups: The roles of threat and timing. Applied Cognitive

Psychology, 28(3), 349-359. doi: 10.1002/acp.3005

Fawcett, J. M., Russell, E. J., Peace, K. A., & Christie, J. (2013). Of guns and geese: A meta-

analytic review of the ‘weapon focus’ literature. Psychology, Crime & Law, 19(1), 35-66.

Federal Bureau of Investigations. (2011). Violations of the Federal Bank Robbery and Incidental

Crimes Statute. Bank crime statistics (Title 18, United States Code, Section 2113).

Retrieved from http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/bank-crime-statistics-

2011/bank-crime-statistics-2011

Federal Bureau of Investigations. (2012). Crime in the United States. Robbery, types of weapons

used. Retrieved from https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-

2012/tables/robbery_table_3_robbery_types_of_weapons_used_percent_distribution_by_

region_2012.xls

Federal Bureau of Investigations. (2014). Violations of the Federal Bank Robbery and Incidental

Crimes Statute. Bank crime statistics (Title 18, United States Code, Section 2113).

Retrieved from https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/bank-crime-statistics-

2014/bank-crime-statistics-2014

Federal Bureau of Investigations. (2015). Crime in the United States. Robbery, types of weapons

used. Retrieved from https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-

2015/tables/robbery_table_3_robbery_types_of_weapons_used_percent_distribution_by_

region_2015.xls

Flowe, H. D., Hope, L., & Hillstrom, A. P. (2013). Oculomotor examination of the weapon focus

effect: Does a gun automatically engage visual attention? PLoS ONE, 8(12), 1-7. doi:

10.1371/journal.pone.0081011

Harada, Y., Hakoda, Y., Kuroki, D., & Mitsudo, H. (2015). The presence of a weapon shrinks

the functional field of view. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 29(4), 592-599. doi:

10.1037/t25937-000

Hope, L., & Wright, D. (2007). Beyond unusual? Examining the role of attention in the weapon

focus effect. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 951-961. doi: 10.1002/acp.1307

Hulse, L. M., & Memon, A. (2006). Fatal impact? The effects of emotional arousal and weapon

presence on police officers’ memories for a simulated crime. Legal & Criminological

Psychology, 11(2), 313-325. doi: 10.1348/135532505X58062

Innocence Project. (2016). Eyewitness Misidentification. Retrieved from

http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/Eyewitness-Misidentification.php

Johnson, C., & Scott, B. (1976). Eyewitness testimony and suspect identification as a function of

arousal, sex or witness and scheduling of interrogation. Paper presented at the American

Psychological Association Annual Meeting, Washington, D. C.

Kramer, T. H., Buckhout, R., & Eugenio, P. (1990). Weapon focus, arousal, and eyewitness

memory. Law and Human Behavior, 14(3), 167-184. doi: 10.1007/BF01062971

Loftus, E. F. (1979). Eyewitness testimony. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press

Loftus, E. F., & Loftus, G. R., & Messo, J. (1987). Some facts about “weapon focus”. Law and

Human Behavior, 11(1), 55-62. doi: 10.1007BF01044839

Loftus, E. F., & Palmer J. C. (1974). Reconstruction of automobile destruction: An example of

the interaction between language and memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal

Behavior, 13(5), 585-589. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5371(74)80011-3

Macmillan, N. A., & Creelman, C. D. (2005). Detection theory: A user’s guide (2nd ed.).

Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Memon, A., Hope, L., & Bull, R. (2003). Exposure duration: Effects on eyewitness accuracy and

confidence. British Journal of Psychology, 94(3), 339–354. doi:

10.1348/000712603767876262

Memon, A., Mastroberardino, S., & Fraser, J. (2008). Munsterberg’s legacy: What does

eyewitness research tell us about the reliability of eyewitness testimony? Applied Cognitive

Psychology, 22(6), 841–851. http://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1487

Mickes, L., Moreland, M. B., Clark, S. E., & Wixted, J. T. (2014). Missing the information

needed to perform ROC analysis? Then compute d’, not the diagnosticity ratio. Journal of

Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 3, 58– 62. doi: 10.1016/j.jarmac.2014.04.007

Mitchell, K. J., Livosky, M., & Mather, M. (1998). The weapon focus effect revisited: The role

of novelty. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 3, 287-303. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-

8333.1998.tb00367.x

Munsterberg, H. (1907). On the Witness Stand: Essays on Psychology and Crime. London:

Forgotten Books.

National Research Council (2014). Identifying the culprit: Assessing eyewitness identification.

Washington, DC: The National Academics Press.

Neil v Biggers, 409 U S 188 (1972).

O’Rourke, T. E., Penrod, S. D., Cutler, B. L., & Stuve, T. E. (1989). The external validity of

eyewitness identification research: Generalizing across subject populations. Law and

Human Behavior, 13(4), 385–395. doi: 10.1007/BF01056410

Pickel, K. L. (1998). Unusualness and threat as possible causes of “weapon focus”. Memory,

6(3), 277-295. doi: 10.1080/096582198388292

Pickel, K. L. (1999). The influence of context on the “weapon focus” effect. Law and Human

Behavior, 23(3), 299-311. doi: 10.1023/A:1022356431375

Pickel, K. L., Ross, S. J., & Truelove, R. S. (2006). Do weapons automatically capture attention?

Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 871-893. doi: 10.1002/acp1235

Shapiro, P. N., & Penrod, S. (1986). Meta-analysis of facial identification studies. Psychological

Bulletin, 100, 139-156. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.100.2.139

Steblay, N. L. (1992). A meta-analytic review of the weapon focus effect. Law and Human

Behavior, 16(4), 413-424

Steblay, N. K., Dysart, J. E., & Wells, G. L. (2011). Seventy-two tests of the sequential lineup

superiority effect: A meta-analysis and policy discussion. Psychology, Public Policy,

and Law, 17(1), 99-139. doi: 10.1037/a0021650

Tooley, V., Brigham, J. C., Maass, A., & Bothwell, R. K. (1987). Facial recognition: Weapon

effect and attentional focus. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 17(10), 845-859. doi:

10.1111/j.1559-1816.1987.tb00294.x

Valentine, T., Pickering, A., & Darling, S. (2003). Characteristics of eyewitness identification

that predict the outcome of real lineups. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 969-993. doi:

10.1002/acp.939

Vickers, J. N., & Lewinski, W. (2012). Performing under pressure: Gaze control, decision

making and shooting performance of elite and rookie police officers. Human Movement

Science, 31(1), 101-117. doi: 10.1016/j.humov.2011.04.004

Wells, G. L. (1978). Applied eyewitness-testimony research: System variables and estimator

variables. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(12), 1546-1557. doi:

10.1037/0022-3514.36.12.1546SICI)1099-0720(199911)13:1+

ACP690>3.0.CO;2-4

Wells, G. L., Memon, A., & Penrod, S. D. (2006). Eyewitness evidence improving its probative

value. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7(2), 45–76. doi:

10.1111/j.1529-1006.2006.00027.x

Wells, G. L., & Murray, D. M. (1983). What can psychology say about the Neil v. Biggers

criteria for judging eyewitness accuracy? Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(3), 347–362.

doi: http://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.68.3.347

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

LINKS TO MOCK CRIME VIDEOS

APPENDIX A

LINKS TO MOCK CRIME VIDEOS

Visible Weapon/Good View - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9iWZGNwIKNk

Visible Weapon/Bad View – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R31vAd0ibis

Concealed Weapon/Good View – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjDzQlGygHA

Concealed Weapon/Bad View – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZO-BGp0Q0w0

No weapon/Good View – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jDBHP2WAV8

No Weapon/Bad View – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OREzHoS2yQQ

APPENDIX B

EXAMPLE OF PERPETRATOR PRESENT LINEUP (PERPETRATOR IN POSITION 4)

APPENDIX B

EXAMPLE OF PERPETRATOR PRESENT LINEUP (PERPETRATOR IN POSITION 4)

APPENDIX C

EXAMPLE OF PERPETRATOR ABSENT LINEUP

APPENDIX D

MEMORY QUESTIONNAIRE

APPENDIX D

MEMORY QUESTIONNAIRE

1. What color was the woman’s shirt? ______

2. What color was the woman’s purse? ______

3. Was the woman wearing a shirt, shorts, or pants? ______

4. Which had was the woman holding her phone while talking? ______

5. What color was the woman’s car? ______

6. Was the car a two door or four door sedan? ______

7. What crime is being depicted in the video? ______

8. What type of clothing was the perpetrator wearing on his upper body? ______

9. Did the perpetrator show a weapon? ______

10. Was there another car in the garage? ______

APPENDIX E

DEMOGRAPHICS QUESTIONS

APPENDIX E

DEMOGRAPHICS QUESTIONS

A.) Please enter your sex.

B.) Please enter your age.

C.) What is your race/ethnicity?

VITA

Jennifer G. Dias was born on March 30, 1972 in Stephenville, TX. She earned her

Bachelor of Science in psychology in 1995 and Master of Education in guidance and counseling in 1997 from Tarleton State University. In 2006, after almost 10 years of teaching undergraduate psychology, she was accepted in the Ph.D. program in psychology at Texas A&M University–

Commerce. While working on her doctoral degree, in 2015 she earned a Master of Science in psychology. While working on this degree, she continued to teach undergraduate psychology at

Tarleton State University. Her research interests include eyewitness identification and memory.

Permanent Address: 3720 Cove Timber Ave Granbury, TX 76049 Email: [email protected]