1) This field study examined how intoxicated witnesses' identification performance is affected by identification format (lineup vs. showup). 2) In target-present conditions, alcohol consumption and identification format had no effect on witnesses' ability to identify the perpetrator. 3) In target-absent conditions, identification format affected choosing behavior, with showups increasing the likelihood of choosing, but this did not significantly enhance false identifications.

1. Show me one or six? Field study examining how
identification format affects real-world intoxicated witnesses
CHRISTOPHER ALTMAN, NADJA SCHREIBER COMPO, KRISTEN SLAPINSKI,
HANNAH LESZCZYNSKI, SEAN REYNOLDS, CHRISTINA KUZMINSKI, ABIGAIL
BRIGGS, & JISELLE CERVERA

2. Intoxicated Witnesses
 Police interactions (Evans, Schreiber Compo, Russano, 2009)
 Common (53%) or very common (20%)
 Most interviewed an intoxicated witness within the past month
 ≈ .20% had provided an intoxicated witness with a lineup or showup
 Jurors opinions (Evans & Schreiber Compo, 2010)
 Less credible
 More cognitively impaired
 Less able to make an accurate identification
 Experts opinions (Kassin, Tubb, Hosch, & Memon, 2001)
 “Alcohol impairs witnesses’ ability to recall persons and events.” (90%)
 Would testify about the phenomenon (61%)
 Negative alcohol-memory relationship was common sense (95%)

3. 1) Yuille & Tollestrup (1990)
2) Dysart et al., (2002)
Study Space Analysis
Effect of
alcohol
X

4. 1) Yuille & Tollestrup (1990)
2) Dysart et al., (2002)
3) Hagsand et al., (2013)
4) Harvey et al., (2013)
5) Kneller & Harvey (2015)
6) Flowe et al., (2017)
Study Space Analysis
Ps Sober
During ID
X
X
BAC
Restriction
X
Lab
Study
X
Effect of
alcohol
X
X
X
X
X
Full
Lineup
X

5. 1) Yuille & Tollestrup (1990)
2) Dysart et al., (2002)
3) Hagsand et al., (2013)
4) Harvey et al., (2013)
5) Kneller & Harvey (2015)
6) Flowe et al., (2017)
7) Altman et al., (2018)
Study Space Analysis
Ps Sober
During ID
X
X
BAC
Restriction
X
Lab
Study
X
Effect of
alcohol
X
X
X
X
X
X
Full
Lineup
X
XXX

6. Alcohol & Showups
 Showup (Sjӧberg, 2016; Steblay, Dysart, Fulero, & Lindsay, 2003)
 Lack of fillers increases likelihood of false identifications
 Witness fails to consider alternative s to suspect presented
 Has no effect on correct perpetrator identifications
 Alcohol (Josephs & Steele, 1990; George, Rogers, & Duka, 2005)
 Reduces the ability to consider alternative options (while intoxicated)
 Creates a liberal decision-making criteria

7. Current Study
 Goal of the present study
 Test participants ID performance at elevated BAC levels
 Examine whether ID format affects decisions
 Lineup vs showup
 Hypotheses
 Target-present conditions
 Alcohol and ID format will have no effect on choosing or identifications
 Target-absent conditions
 Showup: Alcohol will increase choosing / false identifications
 Lineup: Alternatives will lead to rejections/r filler identifications
o No increase in false identifications

8. Participants = 132
 Age
 Range = 19-66 years
 Mean = 38.83 (15.08)
 Gender
 Male = 53%
 Female= 47%
 Ethnicity
 Caucasian = 129 (97.7%)
 African American= 2 (1.5%)
 Hispanic = 1 (.8%)

9. Participants BAC Levels
0-
10-
15-
20-
5-
25-
.00 .05 .15 .25.10 .20
N= 132
BAC Range= .000- .240
Legal U.S. limit
BAC= .08
Under the legal
limit
BAC=.00-.079
N=73
Over the
legal limit
BAC >.080
N= 59
BAC Measure
Frequency

10. Materials & Procedure
 Research examining cognitive and motor functioning
 Taken to a separate testing room
 Had their BAC levels recorded
 First motor task
 Modified version of the game Cornhole
 Given 5 bean bags to throw at the Cornhole board
 Accumulate high score across 4 rounds

11. Materials & Procedure
 Confederate intrusion
 Wants to join the Cornhole game
 Plays with equipment after told “no”
 Stands, yells, flips chair, exits
 Intrusion lasted ≈ 1 minute
 Identification portion
 Bar supplied photos of women who previously caused disturbances
 Could you look at them and tell me if the intruder is pictured?
 Keep in mind she may or may not be there
 Lineup: 6-person simultaneous TA or TP
 Showup: TA or TP
 Selection, rejection, ‘not sure’

12. Target-Absent Lineup

13. Target-Present Lineups

14. Target-Present Lineups

15. Target-Present Lineups

16. Target-Present Showup

17. Target-Absent Showups

18. Analyses
 Separated based on target-presence
 Logistic regressions
 BAC level (continuous)
 ID format (showup vs. lineup)
 Interaction
 Choosing behavior
 Did the participant make an identification
 Accuracy
 Target-present: Perpetrator identifications
 Target-absent: False identifications

19. Choosing Behavior (TP)
Model: 2(3) = 2.28, p = .52
ID Format: p = .87
BAC level: p = .22
Interaction: p = .80
No Selection
Made Selection
71%
65%
31%
35%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Lineup Showup

20. Choosing Behavior (TP)
Lineup
Showup
No Selection
Made Selection
0
1
2
3
4
.00
.01
.03
.04
.05
.06
.07
.08
.10
.11
.14
.16
.18
.21
.22
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
.00
.01
.02
.03
.04
.05
.07
.08
.09
.10
.11
.13
.15
.16
.18
.22

21. Choosing Behavior (TA)
Model: 2(3) = 12.52, p < .01
ID Format: p < .05
BAC level: p = .44
Interaction: p = .69
No Selection
Made Selection
59%
23%
41%
77%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Lineup Showup

22. Choosing Behavior (TA)
0
1
2
3
4
5
.00
.01
.02
.03
.04
.05
.06
.07
.08
.09
.10
.11
.12
.14
.15
.18
.19
.21
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
.00
.01
.02
.03
.04
.05
.06
.08
.09
.10
.11
.12
.13
.14
.15
.16
.19
.20
.23
.24
Lineup
Showup
No Selection
Made Selection

23. Perpetrator IDs (TP)
Model: 2(3) = 4.46, p = .22
ID Format: p = .37
BAC level: p = .22
Interaction: p = .87
No Perpetrator ID
Perpetrator ID
46%
65%
54%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Lineup Showup
35%

24. Perpetrator IDs (TP)
Lineup
Showup
0
1
2
3
4
.00
.01
.03
.04
.05
.06
.07
.08
.10
.11
.14
.16
.18
.21
.22
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
.00
.01
.02
.03
.04
.05
.07
.08
.09
.10
.11
.13
.15
.16
.18
.22
No Perpetrator ID
Perpetrator ID

25. False IDs (TA)
Model: 2(3) = 6.82, p = .08
ID Format: p = .10
BAC level: p = .17
Interaction: p = .83
No False ID
False ID
19% 23%
81% 77%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Lineup Showup

26. False IDs (TA)
Lineup
Showup
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
.00
.01
.02
.03
.04
.05
.06
.08
.09
.10
.11
.12
.13
.14
.15
.16
.19
.20
.23
.24
0
1
2
3
4
5
.00
.01
.02
.03
.04
.05
.06
.07
.08
.09
.10
.11
.12
.14
.15
.18
.19
.21
No False ID
False ID

27. Discussion
 Target- present condition
 No effect of alcohol or ID format
 Target-absent condition
 No effect of alcohol
 ID format affected choosing behavior
 Did not enhance false identifications
 Filler similarity
 Dysart et al. (2002): “highly similar filler “
 Present study: Aggregate of all fillers
 WCS suspect was identified 50% of the time
VS.

28. Take-Aways
1) BAC level does not have a significant impact on witnesses’
identification decisions
2) Exception could be when a showup procedure is used and the
innocent suspect is highly similar to the witness

29. Questions?