Pozzulo et al. · line-ups
Compare children’s and adults’ identifications when a target is familiar or unfamiliar and present or absent. Separate choosing a familiar cartoon from rejecting an absent face, and avoid treating laboratory choices as courtroom certainty.
Section Paper 1 · Approaches, Issues and Debates
Exam scope and assessment notes
Original StudyForA teaching mapped to the Cambridge 2028–2030 syllabus. These lessons are independent study support, not Cambridge material, official mark schemes or awarded grades. No lesson reproduces a research article or Cambridge question. Human subject-expert review and full timed-paper grading remain pending. This lesson synthesises the named study from its original article and Cambridge's study outline; it is an original summary, not a reproduction of the paper.
Before you begin
- This is one of the 12 compulsory AS core studies in the 2028–2030 Version 1 syllabus. Check that your exam entry uses this syllabus year.
Work on paper. Try each question before revealing help, and explain why your method works.
Quick readiness check
How did children’s correct rejection of absent human-face lineups compare with adults’?
What you will learn
- Explain the study aim, sample, procedure and findings
- Evaluate the method, ethics and evidence
- Apply the relevant approach and issues/debates without overclaiming
Approach and research focus
Cognitive approach. The study examines memory-based face identification and whether young children make more false-positive choices than adults when the correct target is absent from a lineup.
Background: Earlier research found that children can identify a culprit when the face is present but may be more likely than adults to select an innocent person when the target is absent. The researchers compared familiar cartoon characters with unfamiliar human faces to examine how target familiarity and age relate to identification and rejection.
Aim and procedure
The laboratory study included 59 children aged 4–7 (mean age about five) from three private schools in Eastern Ontario and 53 university adults aged 17–30. The mixed design compared age group, cartoon versus human targets, and target-present versus target-absent lineups. Participants watched short clips of two familiar cartoon characters and two unfamiliar adults, then described what they remembered and completed a simultaneous photo lineup with a silhouette option for ‘not present’. Target presence was varied across participants; parents completed children’s background and cartoon-familiarity forms, and participants also answered memory questions.
Results and conclusion
For target-present lineups, children’s average correct identification was .99 for cartoons and .23 for human faces; adults’ rates were .95 and .66. For target-absent lineups, children correctly rejected .74 of cartoon and .45 of human lineups, compared with adults’ .94 and .70. Children therefore made more false-positive selections than adults for both target types; familiarity improved children’s performance but did not remove the age difference in correct rejection.
The results support an age-related difference in rejecting target-absent lineups in these conditions. Children’s almost-perfect cartoon identification shows that unfamiliar-face memory is not the only explanation: familiarity, developing recognition and the social demand to choose may all matter. The task does not show that every child witness is unreliable or that one lineup procedure predicts a real case.
Evaluate the evidence
The same participants saw cartoon and human targets, and the target-present/absent factor was varied systematically. Standardised clips, simultaneous lineups and explicit ‘may or may not be present’ instructions support controlled comparison.
The sample came from three private schools in one Ontario community and one university pool; the adult and child groups differ in age and recruitment setting.
A short video followed by a laptop lineup is unlike a real crime, delay, stress or investigative interview. Familiar cartoons may also differ from faces in ways beyond familiarity.
Children’s low correct rejection for unfamiliar faces and high correct identification for familiar cartoons show that accuracy depends on the target and decision type; one overall ‘eyewitness accuracy’ score would hide this pattern.
Ethics and issues/debates
Parents or guardians provided written consent for children, and adults consented to participate. Studies with young children also require age-appropriate assent, privacy protection and a clear right to stop.
Lineup tasks can create pressure to select a face. The silhouette response and repeated reminder that the target might be absent reduce that pressure, but do not make a laboratory task equivalent to a real identification procedure.
Memory performance depends on familiarity and task demands; a correct cartoon choice does not establish equally accurate memory for unfamiliar people.
The age comparison is consistent with developmental differences but does not isolate a single cognitive cause.
The findings have practical relevance to child eyewitness evidence, but should not be used to dismiss a child’s account or make a legal decision from one laboratory study.
Sources for this lesson
Pause and explain
Why is the high cartoon-identification result not enough to claim child eyewitnesses are generally accurate?
Worked example
A student says, ‘Children identified cartoons almost perfectly, so children are as accurate as adults in lineups.’ Correct the conclusion.
Show the worked solution
- The .99 figure is children’s correct identification rate for familiar cartoon targets when the target was present.
- For target-absent human lineups, children correctly rejected .45 compared with .70 for adults.
- Accuracy changes with target familiarity and whether the target is present; one condition cannot stand for all lineup decisions.
Answer Children were highly accurate for familiar cartoons when present, but were less accurate than adults at rejecting absent cartoon and human targets. The study shows a condition-specific pattern, not equal overall eyewitness accuracy.
Try a topic test
Choose Easy, Normal or Difficult. Save your answers and open worked review after finishing.
Test this topic →From guided practice to a new situation
Write your answer and reasoning first. Use a hint only if you are stuck. The model solution is for self-checking; your written work is not automatically marked.
Children correctly identified .99 of target-present cartoons but correctly rejected .45 of target-absent human lineups. Explain why the two figures do not contradict each other.
Give me a hint
Identify whether the target was familiar and present or unfamiliar and absent.
Compare my reasoning
- The .99 result concerns recognising a familiar cartoon when it appears in the lineup.
- The .45 result concerns refusing to choose when an unfamiliar human target is absent.
- Recognition and rejection are different decisions with different target familiarity, so performance can differ.
The figures measure different conditions: familiar-target recognition was high, while rejecting an absent unfamiliar face was harder for children.
Look for these in your work
- Both target types named
- Present/absent distinction made
- Decision demands compared
Evaluate whether this study shows that social pressure alone causes children’s false-positive choices.
Give me a hint
Use both the familiar and unfamiliar target results and the limits of the design.
Compare my reasoning
- Children identified familiar cartoon targets very accurately, suggesting the face-memory demand was easier when the target was familiar.
- Children still correctly rejected fewer target-absent lineups than adults for cartoons and human faces.
- The study did not experimentally isolate social pressure from memory development, familiarity or other task demands.
The results are consistent with social demands contributing, but they do not isolate social pressure as the sole cause; target familiarity and cognitive development also matter.
Look for these in your work
- Evidence from both targets
- Alternative explanations considered
- Causal claim bounded
Design a child-friendly follow-up that tests whether a neutral lineup instruction changes false-positive choices.
Give me a hint
Keep target presence controlled and make the child’s option to decline clear.
Compare my reasoning
- With guardian consent and child assent, randomly assign children to a neutral instruction or a carefully reviewed comparison instruction.
- Use balanced target-present and target-absent lineups with matched, age-appropriate stimuli and record correct choices, foil choices and refusals.
- Tell every child that the target may be absent, avoid authority pressure, allow stopping, and debrief in age-appropriate language.
A safeguarded comparison of instruction wording could test response pressure while balancing target status and protecting children from pressure or distress.
Look for these in your work
- Instruction is operationalised
- Lineup outcomes defined
- Consent, assent and stop option included
Common mistakes
- Confusing correct identification in a target-present lineup with correct rejection in a target-absent lineup
- Calling a foil selection a correct identification
- Ignoring that cartoon targets were familiar and human targets were unfamiliar
- Treating laboratory group averages as a verdict on an individual child witness
What can you explain now?
What does the .45 result describe?
Compare with the explanation
Children’s correct rejection rate for target-absent human-face lineups
It is not the rate at which children identified a target that was actually present.
After trying it yourself, choose your next review. This is your self-assessment.
Your review choice appears on Today. Sign in to sync it across devices.
Make it stick
Name the aim, the best-evidenced result and one methodological limitation of Pozzulo et al..
If you needed the solution, close it and solve the problem again from a blank page. A correct answer is stronger when you can explain the reason for each step.