Guilty or innocent? About the role of choice blindness and own-race bias in eyewitness identifications
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.26481/marble.2013.v3.155Abstract
Most of us would say that we would notice if the ice-cream seller gave us strawberry ice-cream, when we actually asked for chocolate. However, several studies indicate that people do not always notice changes in the outcome of their decisions. This phenomenon is called choice blindness and occurs in a wide variety of domains. Apparently, it is even possible that eyewitnesses do not notice that the person they identified from a lineup earlier is not identical with a person presented to them later. If this already occurs in own-race cases, what should we expect if an eyewitness has to identify a person from another race? Due to the own-race bias, people have more difficulty in recognizing faces from another race than from their own race. Do people also have more difficulty in noticing a switch in the outcome of their identification decision when they have to identify other-race faces compared to own-race faces? The present article, we examine the role of choice blindness and the own-race bias in the performance of eyewitnesses.
References
Allik, J., & McCrae, R. R. (2004). Toward a geography of personality traits: Patterns of profiles across 36 cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35, 13-28. doi:10.1177/0022022103260382
Bothwell, R. K., Brigham, J. C., & Malpass, R. S. (1989). Cross-racial identification. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 15, 19-25. doi:10.1177/0146167289151002
Hall, L., Johansson, P., Tärning, B., Sikström, S., & Deutgen, T. (2010). Magic at the marketplace: Choice blindness for the taste of jam and the smell of tea. Cognition, 117, 54-61. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2010.06.010
Haw, R. M., & Fisher, R. P. (2004). Effects of administrator-witness contact on eyewitness identification accuracy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 1106-1112. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.1106
Herzmann, G., Willenbockel, V., Tanaka, J. W., & Curran, T. (2011). The neural correlates of memory encoding and recognition for own-race and other-race faces. Neuropsychologia, 49, 3103-3115. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2011.07.019
Johansson, P., Hall, L., Sikström, S., & Olsson, A. (2005). Failure to detect mismatches between intention and outcome in a simple decision task. Science, 310, 116-119. doi:10.1126/science.1111709
Meissner, A., & Brigham, J. C. (2001). Thirty years of investigating the own-race bias in memory for faces: A meta-analytic review. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7, 3-35. doi:10.1037//1076-8971.7.1.3
Raad voor de Rechtspraak. (2008). U bent getuige in een strafproces. [Brochure] Den Haag: Raad voor de Rechtspraak.
Sagana, A., Sauerland, M., & Merckelbach, H. (2013). “This is the person you selected”: About being blind for one’s own eyewitness identification decision. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Sambeek, I. (2013). The role of race, choice and accuracy in the blindness for one’s own identification decision (Unpublished bachelor’s thesis). Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Sauerland, M., Sagana, A., & Otgaar, H. (2012). Theoretical and legal issues related to choice blindness for voices. Legal & Criminological Psychology, 48, 1-11. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8333.2012.02049.x
Steblay, N., Dysart, J., Fulero, S., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (2001). Eyewitness accuracy rates in sequential and simultaneous lineup presentations: A meta-analytic review. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 459–473. doi:10.1023/A:1012888715007
Verheggen, I. C. M. (2013). Choice blindness for own and other race eyewitness identifications: Associations to post-decision confidence (Unpublished bachelor’s thesis). Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Wright, D. B., Boyd, C. E., & Tredoux, C. G. (2003). Inter-racial contact and own-race bias for face recognition in South Africa and England. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 365-373. doi:10.1002/acp.898
