The Impact of Criminal Code Training on Eyewitness Identification Accuracy

doi:10.4236/psych.2013.412149

Paper Menu >>

Journal Menu >>

Psychology

2013. Vol.4, No.12, 1027-1029

Published Online December 2013 in SciRes (http://www.scirp.org/journal/psych) http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/psych.2013.412149

Open Access 1027

The Impact of Criminal Code Training on Eyewitness

Identification Accuracy

Michael Storozuk1, Paul Dupuis2

1Department of Criminology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

2Department of Psychology, Algoma University, Sault Ste Marie, Canada

Email: [email protected]

Received August 16th, 2013; r evised September 14th, 2013; accepted October 13th, 2013

Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,

provided the original work is properly cited. In accordance of the Creative Commons Attribution License all

Eyewitness identification accuracy of offenders (persons who committed a crime) is generally unreliable.

In this study, we implemented a training approach to examine the impact of a brief criminal law training

session on the identification accuracy of eyewitnesses viewing a simulated violent altercation between

two males. Participants provided with prior training on how to appropriately apply specific criminal law

definitions relevant to a violent altercation (assault and self-defense provisions) were more accurate in

their identifications of the offender when compared to participants provided with irrelevant training (a riot

and the unlawful assembly of a riot), and participants provided with no training, when observing the same

violent altercation. Potential implications and limitations are discussed.

Keywords: Eyewitness Identification; Criminal Law; Training

Introduction

One of the most prevalent findings in the forensic psychol-

ogy literature is that eyewitness identification is often unreli-

able and inaccurate (Leippe, Eisenstandt, & Rauch, 2009; Web-

ber & Perfect, 2012). This finding is largely stable across a

variety of crime types (Wells & Olson, 2003; Clark, Marshall,

& Rosenthal, 2009) as well as across a variety of lineup proce-

dures and techniques (see Steblay, Dysart, & Wells, 2011;

Wells & Olson, 2003 for reviews). As many of these estimator

and system variables have been shown to contribute to unreli-

able and inaccurate eyewitness memory, we were interested in

assessing eyewitness identification accuracy from a different

perspective, a training perspective. Specifically, we were inter-

ested in examining whether or not training in certain sections of

the Criminal Code would impact eyewitness identification ac-

curacy for a dyadic violent crime altercation, a social interac-

tion that leads to the exchange of criminal violence between

two people (Athens, 2005).

Eyewitness offender identification accuracy for dyadic vio-

lent crime altercations can be particularly unreliable, in large

part because the processing of information about the offender

can be difficult for an eyewitness (Deffenbacher, Bornstein,

Penrod, & McGorty, 2004; Marsh & Greenberg, 2006). With

both individuals (i.e., offender and victim) of a dyadic violent

crime altercation exchanging acts of criminal violence (Athens,

1997; Guerette & Santana, 2010), there is a potential decrease

in the amount of attention an eyewitness can devote to the of-

fender’s characteristics. A lack of attention may hinder the

eyewitness’s memory for the offender’s characteristics, and

consequently negatively impact identification accuracy in the

event that they are later questioned by the police (Tuckey &

Brewer, 2003; Hellman, Echterhoff, Hopietz, Niemeier, &

Memon, 2011).

Our intention in this study is to provide an empirical ap-

proach that can be offered as a potential starting point for future

research. This approach involves training in specific aspects of

criminal law. Criminal laws are in the public domain and the

average citizen is expected to have some knowledge of these

laws. For example, one of the main purposes of criminal laws

(e.g. the Canadian Criminal Code) is to inform the public of the

actions they are criminally prohibited from performing (Her-

mida, 2011). An implication for an eyewitness is that if they

notice that an incident involves a crime and can determine

which behaviors in a given incident are criminal, their attention

can be devoted more appropriately to relevant details of the

incident (e.g. the offender). However, the assumption that the

average person is knowledgeable enough about criminal law to

apply this to an incident involving criminal behavior is tenuous.

Therefore, we investigated whether training eyewitnesses

about how to appropriately apply the content within a given

violent crime definition (how to identify the behaviors impli-

cated in the criminal act) and a given justification (how to iden-

tify who is and who is not justified in committing such a crimi-

nal act) would increase their ability to accurately identify the

offender of a dyadic violent altercation, when compared to

eyewitnesses who did not receive such training. We hypothe-

sized that eyewitness identification of the offender would be

more accurate for participants in the specific-training group

than for participants in the nonspecific-training group and the

control group. Our hypothesis was based on the assumption that

involvement in the specific-training group would disambiguate

M. STOROZUK, P. DUPUIS

the dyadic violent crime altercation in regards to discerning

between the offender and victim. We thought that this could

increase participants’ awareness of the offender’s characteris-

tics when they observed the altercation, increase participants’

memory for the offender, and therefore result in more accurate

eyewitness identifications.

Methods

We presented participants (78 introductory psychology stu-

dents from Algoma University) with a fifty-eight second vide-

otaped violent altercation depicting two males committing

criminal violence as per the assault definition in the Criminal

Code (see section 265 of Criminal Code, 1985). As per the

self-defence definition in the Criminal Code (see section 35 of

Criminal Code, 1985), one of the males was justified in

self-defence (i.e., the victim) and the other was not (i.e., the

offender). Between five and seven days prior to viewing the

violent altercation and performing the eyewitness identification

procedure, participants randomly received one of three forms of

training. Participants were either trained how to appropriately

apply the assault and self-defence definitions to a hypothetical

case (the specific-training group), how to appropriately apply

an irrelevant Criminal Code definition (riot and unlawful as-

sembly of a riot) to a hypothetical case (the non-specific train-

ing group), or received no training (the control group). Follow-

ing the training and the presentation of the videotaped violent

altercation, participants were all presented with a six person,

target present, simultaneous lineup and asked to identify the

person from the video who committed assault or to indicate that

the offender was not present. The lineup consisted of the of-

fender and five foils (known innocents not present in the video).

The victim from the video never appeared in the lineup.

Results

The impact of group training (i.e., specific-training group,

non-specific training group, and control group) on eyewitness

identification accuracy of the offender was analyzed using a

One-Way ANOVA. All statistical analyses were conducted at

the p < 0.05 significance level. There was a statistically sig-

nificant main effect for the impact of group training. Results

indicated that eyewitness identification of the offender was

most accurate for participants in the specific-training group (M

= 1.30), less accurate for participants in the control group (M =

1.60), and least accurate for participants in the non-specific

training group (M = 1.78) (F (2, 75) = 7.34, p < 0.01). Post-hoc

analyses revealed that eyewitness identification was more ac-

curate for participants in the specific-training group than for

participants in the non-specific training group (p < 0.01) or the

control group (p < 0.05). The identification accuracy of par-

ticipants in the control group did not differ from those in the

non-specific training group (p > 0.05).

Discussion

Research shows that eyewitnesses are generally unreliable

when it comes to identifying an offender from a crime they

observed (Wells & Olson, 2003; Webber & Perfect, 2012).

Consequently, a long standing problem faced by researchers

has been the question of how to improve eyewitness identifica-

tion accuracy. Researchers have explored numerous variables to

gauge the impact on eyewitness identification accuracy with

generally limited success (see Wells & Olson, 2003).

Ambiguity over explicitly distinguishing between the of-

fender and victim may negatively impact an eyewitness’s in-

formation processing of the offender’s characteristics when

they are observing a dyadic violent altercation, thereby poten-

tially negatively impacting an eyewitness’s identification accu-

racy (e.g., Tuckey & Brewer, 2003; Hellman, Echterhoff,

Hopietz, Niemeier, & Memon, 2011). We thought that a poten-

tial approach to improving eyewitness offender identification in

regard to this ambiguity issue would be to provide eyewitnesses

with prior training on how to appropriately apply Criminal

Code definitions that are directly relevant to the behavior of the

individuals (i.e., offender and victim) who are party to a given

dyadic violent altercation.

The experimental results supported our hypothesis that par-

ticipants given specific training on relevant Criminal Code

sections would be more accurate in identifying the offender.

Results indicated that eyewitness identification was more accu-

rate for participants in the specific-training group than for par-

ticipants in the non-specific training and no training groups. At

face value, this finding could imply that providing laypersons

with Criminal Code training may be a useful approach to take

toward improving eyewitness identification accuracy of dyadic

violent altercations. Further research is needed to determine if

specific training of this sort consistently leads to higher identi-

fication accuracy as well as how this might be occurring. Per-

haps the attention and focus of eyewitnesses were directed

more appropriately when given specific training due to a de-

crease in the ambiguity of the incident. This can only be im-

plied from our findings and further empirical research is needed

to directly address this potential explanation. Further research

could also explore whether this type of criminal law training

could be successful for other types of crimes. For example,

would specific training in criminal negligence promote accurate

eyewitness identifications for participants exposed to a simu-

lated case involving multiple people only one of which was

criminally negligible? Additionally, introductory psychology

students do not necessarily represent the average citizen well.

Would conducting similar research within a broader participant

pool find similar results? Future research could also examine

whether having different gender or ethnicity combinations of

offenders and victims would result in similar findings? Our data

cannot speak to these questions, but perhaps can encourage

more directed attempts to address these and other related issues.

REFERENCES

Athens, L. (1997). Violent criminal acts and actors revisited. Chicago:

University of Illinois Press.

Athens, L. (2005). Violent encounters: Violent engagements, skirmi-

shes, and tiffs. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 34, 631-678.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0891241605280570

Clark, S. E., Marshall, T.E., & Rosenthal, R. (2009). Lineup adminis-

trator influences on eyewitness identification decisions. Journal of

Experimental Psychology: A ppli ed, 15, 63-75.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0015185

Criminal Code, R.S.C. C-46 (1985).

laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/

Deffenbacher, K. A., Bornstein, B. H., Penrod, S. D., & McGorty, E. K.

(2004). A meta-analytic review of eyewitness memory. Law and

Human Behavior, 28, 687-706.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10979-004-0565-x

Open Access

1028

M. STOROZUK, P. DUPUIS

Open Access 1029

Guerette, R. T., & Santana, S. A . (20 10). Explaining victim self-protec-

tive behavior effects on crime incident outcomes: A test of opportu-

nity theory. Crime & Delinquency, 56, 198-226.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0011128707311644

Hellman, J. H., Echterhoff, G., Kopietz, R., Niemeier, S., & Me mon, A .

(2011). Talking about visually perceived events: Communication ef-

fects on eyewitness memory. European Journal of Social Psychology,

41, 658-671.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.796

Hermida, J. (2011). Criminal law. The Netherlands: Kluwe Law Inter-

national.

Leippe, M. R., Eisenstandt, D., & Rauch, S. M (2009). Cueingconfi-

dence in eyewitness identifications: Influence of biased lineup in-

structions and pre-identification memory feedback under varying li-

neup condition. Law and Human Behavior, 33, 194-212.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10979-008-9135-y

Marsh, D. P., & Greenberg, M. S. (2006). The influence of eyewitness

similarity to a crime victim and victim culpability on eyewitness re-

call. Applied Psychology in Criminal Justice, 2, 43-56.

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

of the sequential lineup superiority effect: A meta-analytic analysis

and policy discussion. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 17, 99-

139. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0021650

Tuckey, M. R., & Brewer, N. (2003). The influence of schemas, stimu-

lus ambiguity, and interview schedule on eye witness memory over

time. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 9, 101-118.

Webber, N., & Perfect, T. J. (2012). Improving eyewitness identifica-

tion accuracy by screening out those who say they don’t know. Law

and Human Behavior, 36, 28-36.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0093976

Wells, G. L., & Olson, E. A. (2003). Eyewitness testimony. Annual

Review of Psychology, 54, 277-295.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145028