Further Readings
Monahan, J., Steadman, H., Appelbaum, P., Grisso, T.,
Mulvey, E., Roth, L., et al. (2005). The classification of
violence risk.Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment
Resources.
Monahan, J., Steadman, H., Appelbaum, P., Grisso, T.,
Mulvey, E., Roth, L., et al. (2007). The classification of
violence risk. Behavioral Sciences and the Law,
24,721–730.
Monahan, J, Steadman, H., Robbins, P., Appelbaum, P.,
Banks, S., Grisso, T., et al. (2005). An actuarial model of
violence risk assessment for persons with mental
disorders. Psychiatric Services, 56,810–815.CLOTHINGBIAS IN
IDENTIFICATIONPROCEDURES
A bias in an identification procedure is any factor—
other than recognition—that leads witnesses to select
a person. Clothing biascan occur whenever someone
is viewed in an identification procedure wearing
clothing that matches the witness’s description of the
clothing worn during the crime. A witness may mis-
takenly select the suspect based on the clothing rather
than the physical appearance of the person. Although
there is limited research to date, clothing bias has been
demonstrated to occur with all three commonly used
identification techniques: mug-shot searches, lineups,
and showups (the presentation of a single suspect to
an eyewitness for identification purposes). This entry
will review why clothing bias is a concern for these
three procedures and the ways to prevent it.
Findings to date demonstrate that for adult wit-
nesses, clothing bias generally does not affect correct
identification rates for mug-shot searches, lineups, or
showups. Correct identification rates increase for
children in the presence of clothing bias. As with
many biases, clothing bias dramatically increases the
rate of false positive choices (i.e., identifications of
innocent people). This increase in false identifications
has been demonstrated with adults for all three identi-
fication procedures and with children for lineups.
With mug-shot searches, innocent people may be
chosen simply because they happen to be wearing
clothing that matches what the perpetrator was wear-
ing. This is problematic because people identified
from mug shots are often treated as suspects in the
absence of any definitive proof of their innocence(e.g., a strong alibi). Mug-shot searches are hard to
protect from clothing bias because the pictures
already exist. To control the clothing for future mug
shots, the police could take mug shots of people
dressed in standard clothing (e.g., large, loose cover-
alls) or take pictures from the neck up to hide the
clothing worn. To control the clothing in extant mug
shots, the photographs could be altered (edited) to
cover up (mask) clothing or reveal only the head.
Clothing bias is of great concern in a lineup. If the
suspect is the only lineup member wearing clothing
similar to the perpetrator’s, the suspect will stand out
in the lineup—a clear source of lineup bias. Additionally,
if the witness selects the suspect, the police and prose-
cutors may treat the identification and the match
between the witness’s description of the clothing and
the suspect’s attire as corroborating evidence of the
suspect’s guilt. The logic of corroboration is flawed in
such cases because the identification and the clothing
are not independent sources of evidence if clothing
bias exists in the identification procedure.
To protect a lineup from clothing bias, the clothing
of all lineup members, including the suspect, should
not match the description of the perpetrator’s clothing
given by the witness. Ideally, the lineup would consist
of only head shots, or all lineup members would be
dressed alike. Corroborating evidence can be obtained
by creating clothing lineups and asking witnesses to
attempt to identify the clothing independently of the
person. Sequential lineup presentation has been
shown to reduce the size of the clothing bias effect.
Showups generally occur shortly after the crime
occurs. Police investigators often will use the descrip-
tion provided by a witness to search the immediate
area for potential suspects. Since the descriptions pro-
vided by witnesses rarely are detailed enough to
ensure that only the perpetrator matches the descrip-
tion and because clothing information often forms a
substantial and distinctive portion of the information
provided in descriptions, clothing cues are likely to be
an important factor in apprehending suspects who
appear in showups. As a result, many suspects are
likely to have been apprehended near the scene of the
crime, shortly after it occurred, and because their
clothing was at least a reasonable match to the wit-
ness’s description of the perpetrator’s clothing. This
can result in witnesses viewing suspects wearing
clothes that closely match the description they pro-
vided, which can in turn lead to false identifications of
innocent suspects. Even when the witness’s descrip-
tion of the clothing is incorrect, innocent suspects94 ———Clothing Bias in Identification ProceduresC-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:41 PM Page 94