Encyclopedia of Psychology and Law

Another controversy surrounding the diagnostic

criteria is the apparent diagnostic biases they invoke.

Although the prevalence of ASPD genuinely may be

higher among men (estimated at 3% of the popula-

tion) than among women (estimated at 1%), research

has documented elevated rates among men even when

men and women do not differ in symptomatology.

Some researchers have argued in favor of amending

the diagnostic criteria to include behaviors associated

specifically with antisociality in women in an effort to

make the criteria more gender neutral. Finally, con-

cerns also have been raised that ASPD may be dispro-

portionately overdiagnosed among prisoners and

persons with substance use problems in light of the

behavioral focus of the criteria.

Kevin S. Douglas and Laura S. Guy

See also Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances, Evaluation

of in Capital Cases; Alcohol Intoxication; Community

Corrections; Conduct Disorder; Criminal Behavior, Theories

of; Ethnic Differences in Psychopathy; Forensic Assessment;

Hare Psychopathy Checklist–Revised (2nd edition)

(PCL–R); Juvenile Offenders, Risk Factors; Juvenile

Psychopathy; Personality Disorders; Psychopathic

Personality Inventory (PPI); Psychopathy; Psychopathy,

Treatment of; Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version;

Violence Risk Assessment

Further Readings

American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and

statistical manual of mental disorders(4th ed., text

revision). Washington, DC: Author.

Fowler, K. A., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2006). Antisocial

personality disorder. In J. E. Fisher & W. T. O’Donohue

(Eds.),Practitioner’s guide to evidence-based

psychotherapy(pp. 57–67). New York: Springer.

Krueger, R. F., Markon, K. E., Patrick, C. J., & Iacono,

W. G. (2005). Externalizing psychopathology in

adulthood: A dimensional-spectrum conceptualization

and its implications for DSM-V. Journal of Abnormal

Psychology, 114,537–550.

Moffitt, T. E. (2005). The new look of behavioral genetics in

developmental psychopathology: Gene-environment

interplay in antisocial behaviors. Psychological Bulletin,

131,533–554.

Patrick, C. J. (2006). Handbook of psychopathy.New York:

Guilford.

Widiger, T. A., Cadoret, R., Hare, R., Robins, L., Rutherford,

M., Zanarini, M., et al. (1996). DSM-IVantisocial

personality disorder field trial. Journal of Abnormal

Psychology, 105,3–16.

APPEARANCE-CHANGE

INSTRUCTION IN LINEUPS

Prior to viewing a lineup, eyewitnesses to crimes are

often given various instructions by lineup adminis-

trators. Among these is the appearance-change

instruction, which is used to inform the eyewitness

that the criminal’s appearance in the lineup may be

different from his or her appearance at the time of

the crime. Generally, this alteration in appearance

would be the result of features that might have

changed over time (such as head or facial hair). This

instruction is especially likely to be given, and is

presumed to be most beneficial, if a significant

period of time has passed between the crime and the

lineup or if the suspect’s appearance is somehow at

odds with the witness’s description of the criminal.

Although frequently administered in an attempt

to increase identifications of the criminal, prelimi-

nary research suggests that the appearance-change

instruction does not increase correct identifications

but instead increases false identifications of inno-

cent lineup members.

Eyewitness Evidence: A Guide for Law Enforce-

ment (a set of guidelines distributed to all law

enforcement agencies across the United States) rec-

ommends that lineup administrators instruct a wit-

ness that “individuals present in the lineup may not

appear exactly as they did on the date of the incident

because features such as head and facial hair are sub-

ject to change” (p. 32). Although recommended, this

instruction is not mandatory; consequently, various

police departments and individual lineup administra-

tors may word the instruction differently or may

omit it altogether. The purpose of this instruction is

to ensure that the witness does not fail to identify the

criminal simply because the witness does not appre-

ciate that the criminal’s appearance might have

changed since the crime. Therefore, it is implicitly

assumed that administering the appearance-change

instruction will lower witnesses’ expectations that

the criminal’s appearance in the lineup will exactly

match his or her appearance at the time of the crime.

This should, in turn, increase the probability of cor-

rectly identifying the actual criminal when the crim-

inal is in fact in the lineup.

Empirical research on the effects of the appear-

ance-change instruction is scarce. Preliminary studies

suggest, however, that the instruction may not be as

beneficial as previously assumed. Although it has

Appearance-Change Instruction in Lineups——— 33

A-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:41 PM Page 33