Abstract:Introduction: Despite converging evidence that people more closely associate the construct of criminality with Black people who exhibit a more African facial phenotype than Black people who express a more European phenotype, eyewitness researchers have largely ignored phenotypic bias as a potential contributor to the racial disparities in the criminal legal system. If this form of phenotypic bias extends to eyewitness identification tasks, eyewitnesses may be more likely to identify Black suspects with an African rather than European phenotype, regardless of their guilt status. Further, in cases where the witness's description of the perpetrator does not contain phenotypic information, phenotypic mismatch between the suspect and the other lineup members may bias identification decisions toward or against the suspect. If witnesses can use elements of the lineup construction to guide their identification decisions rather than relying on their recognition memory, then the lineup should be deemed unfair due to suspect bias. The current study also investigated lineup presentation method as a procedural safeguard, predicting that that when lineups were presented simultaneously, there would be a significant two-way interaction of phenotypic bias and lineup composition, with a larger simple main effect of phenotypic bias when lineups were suspect-biased (i.e., the fillers were a phenotypic mismatch to the suspect) than when all lineup members shared the same phenotype. We expected that this interaction would be significantly smaller or non-significant for sequential lineups. Methods: Participants watched a mock crime video that contained a Black culprit with either a more African phenotype or a less African phenotype before attempting identifications from a photo array that contained a suspect whose phenotype always matched the culprit viewed in the video, but varied in culprit-presence, phenotypic match of the suspect and fillers, and presentation method. Results: Participants did not identify Black suspects with Afrocentric features more often than Black suspects with Eurocentric features. However, witnesses made more identifications of suspects when the fillers did not match the suspect's phenotype compared to when all lineup members possessed similar phenotypic features. Discussion: In sum, phenotypic bias did not influence our participant-witnesses' identification decisions, nor interact with lineup composition and lineup presentation type to affect identifications of suspects, suggesting that phenotypic bias may be less influential in match-to-memory tasks than other types of legal decision-making (e.g., determining guilt and sentencing). However, the suggestiveness created by failing to match fillers' phenotypes to the suspect's phenotype can be avoided with proper attention to fair lineup construction.

Response bias modulates the confidence‐accuracy relationship for both positive identifications and lineup rejections in a simultaneous lineup task

Improving the diagnostic value of lineup rejections

A decision processes account of the differences in the eyewitness confidence-accuracy relationship between strong and weak face recognizers under suboptimal exposure and delay conditions.

How to measure lineup fairness: concurrent and predictive validity of lineup-fairness measures

Evaluating eyewitnesses: Translating expressions of pre‐ and post‐identification confidence

Feeling the future of eyewitness research

On the possible advantages of combining small lineups with instructions that discourage guessing-based selection

Thinking outside the red box: Does the simultaneous Showup distinguish between filler siphoning and diagnostic feature detection accounts of lineup/Showup differences?

Re-evaluating frontopolar and temporoparietal contributions to detection and discrimination confidence

Phenotypic mismatch between suspects and fillers but not phenotypic bias increases eyewitness identifications of Black suspects

Reflector variables in augmented reality lineups: Assessing eyewitness identification reliability in children and adults with confidence, response time, and proximity to the lineup

Predicting and postdicting eyewitness identification accuracy on forensic-object lineups.

Influence of reinforcement and its omission on trial‐by‐trial changes of response bias in perceptual decision making

Bias in Estimates of Quantitative-Trait–Locus Effect in Genome Scans: Demonstration of the Phenomenon and a Method-of-Moments Procedure for Reducing Bias

Psychometric curves reveal changes in bias, lapse rate, and guess rate in an online vigilance task

Developmental trends in lineup performance: Adolescents are more prone to innocent bystander misidentifications than children and adults

Variability in verbal eyewitness confidence

Confidence is detection-like in high-dimensional spaces

The effect of lineup size on discriminability is dependent on filler similarity and independent of encoding strength

Long-term perceptual priors drive confidence bias which favors prior-congruent evidence

Cross validation of the response bias scale and the response bias scale-19 in active-duty personnel: use on the MMPI-2-RF and MMPI-3