Think you could pick a criminal suspect out of a lineup? If they’ve shaved or changed their clothes, you’d probably fail

The study tested remarkably minor alterations that could occur naturally over just days: ‘In some lineups, the “guilty” suspect had slightly shorter hair, their stubble was gone, and they were wearing different clothes.’ These aren’t dramatic transformations requiring deliberate disguise effort—no wigs, prosthetics, or extensive makeup—but rather changes people experience routinely through ordinary grooming and wardrobe choices. The significance lies precisely in their subtlety: the article emphasizes these modifications occur ‘naturally, easily and often,’ representing the kind of everyday appearance variation anyone experiences between committing a crime and appearing in a police lineup days or weeks later. A suspect might simply shave facial hair, get a haircut, and wear different clothing to a lineup than during the crime—unremarkable changes that nonetheless reduced correct identification by 50%. This demonstrates the fragility isn’t limited to elaborate disguise scenarios but extends to mundane grooming and fashion variations, suggesting the justice system’s eyewitness identification procedures face pervasive rather than exceptional vulnerability.

The confidence-accuracy disconnect creates a perfect storm for wrongful convictions because courtroom dynamics privilege subjective certainty over objective correctness. The research found ‘Participants who were 100% confident in the accuracy of their decision were also much more likely to mistakenly identify an “innocent” suspect’ when appearance changed, yet ‘Regardless of their accuracy, identifications made with high confidence are extremely persuasive in court.’ This means the most convincing witnesses to juries—those expressing absolute certainty—are precisely those most prone to misidentification errors under appearance-change conditions. Jurors intuitively treat confidence as a reliability indicator: a witness saying ‘I am 100% certain that’s the person I saw’ carries enormous weight compared to tentative identification. However, the research reveals this intuition proves systematically misleading when suspects have altered appearance—confident witnesses aren’t more accurate, they’re often less so, yet their conviction makes wrongful conviction more likely by persuading jurors to trust fundamentally unreliable identifications. This gap exposes how courtroom epistemology (treating confidence as accuracy proxy) contradicts psychological reality (confidence doesn’t correlate with accuracy after appearance changes).

Simultaneous lineups present ‘photographs of lineup members together’ allowing witnesses to compare all faces at once, while sequential lineups display photos ‘one at a time’ requiring witnesses to make independent decisions about each person before seeing the next. These procedural variations have dominated eyewitness identification reform debates, with researchers arguing sequential presentation might reduce false identifications by preventing relative judgment (picking who looks most like the perpetrator from available options). However, Jordan’s study found ‘the method used to present lineups and the position of the suspect in the lineup did not improve the accuracy of identification when the suspect’s appearance had been altered.’ This null finding proves troubling because it suggests the primary procedural levers police control—presentation method and suspect positioning—cannot compensate for fundamental human perceptual limitations when appearance changes. The implication challenges procedural reform optimism: if tweaking how lineups are administered doesn’t address appearance-change vulnerability, then improving lineup fairness through administrative adjustments (the dominant reform approach) won’t solve the underlying problem, potentially requiring more radical reconceptualization of identification procedures themselves.

Readlite provides curated articles with comprehensive analysis including summaries, key points, vocabulary building, and practice questions across 9 different RC question types. Our Ultimate Reading Course offers 365 articles with 2,400+ questions to systematically improve your reading comprehension skills.

This article is rated Intermediate because it presents scientific research findings through accessible language without requiring extensive technical background, though it demands careful attention to experimental methodology and statistical relationships. Readers must understand basic research design (control groups, independent/dependent variables) to follow how 350 participants viewing guilty suspect photos then attempting lineup identifications under varying conditions produces meaningful findings. The article requires tracking multiple interconnected claims—50% accuracy drop, confidence-error correlation, procedural ineffectiveness, wrongful conviction statistics—and synthesizing them into coherent argument about justice system vulnerabilities. While vocabulary remains mostly accessible (fallible, compelling, perpetrator), readers encounter specialized terms (simultaneous/sequential lineups, categorical identification, similarity-matching) requiring contextual understanding. Intermediate readers should grasp why the confidence-accuracy gap matters for courtroom outcomes, why appearance-change findings challenge procedural reform optimism, and how similarity-matching procedures represent fundamental rather than incremental reconceptualization. The article rewards systematic reading tracking how each section builds toward conclusion advocating experimental procedures, demanding ability to follow multi-step argumentation from problem documentation through solution proposals while understanding implications for legal policy and practice.

Similarity-matching procedures reconceptualize eyewitness identification by abandoning categorical yes/no decisions in favor of graduated resemblance judgments. Traditional lineups require witnesses to make ‘a categorical (yes/no) identification’—either definitively selecting someone as the perpetrator or declaring no one matches—forcing binary choices that may exceed human perceptual capabilities when appearance has changed. The experimental procedures instead ‘frame recognition as similarity or matching tasks, where witnesses rate how closely lineup members resemble their memory of a perpetrator,’ allowing expression of degrees of resemblance rather than absolute certainty. This fundamental shift acknowledges the research findings: if humans can’t reliably make binary identification decisions after minor appearance changes (the 50% accuracy drop), then procedures should match actual capabilities by permitting graduated responses. Rather than asking ‘Is this the person?’ (demanding certainty witnesses lack), similarity-matching asks ‘How closely does this person resemble your memory?’ (allowing uncertainty expression). Though ‘not yet recommended for investigative and legal purposes,’ these procedures ‘might represent the future of police lineups and may help to reduce wrongful convictions’ precisely because they align procedural demands with human perceptual limitations rather than assuming capabilities research demonstrates don’t exist.

The Ultimate Reading Course covers 9 RC question types: Multiple Choice, True/False, Multi-Statement T/F, Text Highlight, Fill in the Blanks, Matching, Sequencing, Error Spotting, and Short Answer. This comprehensive coverage prepares you for any reading comprehension format you might encounter.