Lineup Presentation Research Articles

New Insights on Expert Opinion About Eyewitness Memory Research.

Experimental psychologists investigating eyewitness memory have periodically gathered their thoughts on a variety of eyewitness memory phenomena. Courts and other stakeholders of eyewitness research rely on the expert opinions reflected in these surveys to make informed decisions. However, the last survey of this sort was published more than 20 years ago, and the science of eyewitness memory has developed since that time. Stakeholders need a current database of expert opinions to make informed decisions. In this article, we provide that update. We surveyed 76 scientists for their opinions on eyewitness memory phenomena. We compared these current expert opinions to expert opinions from the past several decades. We found that experts today share many of the same opinions as experts in the past and have more nuanced thoughts about two issues. Experts in the past endorsed the idea that confidence is weakly related to accuracy, but experts today acknowledge the potential diagnostic value of initial confidence collected from a properly administered lineup. In addition, experts in the past may have favored sequential over simultaneous lineup presentation, but experts today are divided on this issue. We believe this new survey will prove useful to the court and to other stakeholders of eyewitness research.

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

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. 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. 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. 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.

Identification accuracy of a single culprit in a multiple-perpetrator mock crime

IntroductionEyewitness identification research has mainly examined the identification accuracy of a single perpetrator but many actual crimes involve not one but several perpetrators. ObjectiveThe aim of the study was to examine the identification accuracy if only one lineup for one of the two perpetrators is presented in a multiple perpetrator crime. MethodThe sample consisted of 180 participants who saw a theft video followed by distraction tasks. One group of participants saw lineups for both of the perpetrators (one target present and one target-absent) whereas the other saw only a single lineup (either target-present or target-absent) for one of the two perpetrators. ResultsParticipants who saw a single lineup did not make more inaccurate identification decisions then participants who saw two lineups. Decision accuracy in the first lineup was not associated with the decision accuracy in the second lineup. ConclusionThe results are discussed in terms of the number of perpetrators and line-up presentation types.

Do sequential lineups impair underlying\xa0discriminability?

Debate regarding the best way to test and measure eyewitness memory has dominated the eyewitness literature for more than 30 years. We argue that resolution of this debate requires the development and application of appropriate measurement models. In this study we developed models of simultaneous and sequential lineup presentations and used these to compare these procedures in terms of underlying discriminability and response bias, thereby testing a key prediction of diagnostic feature detection theory, that underlying discriminability should be greater for simultaneous than for stopping-rule sequential lineups. We fit the models to the corpus of studies originally described by Palmer and Brewer (2012, Law and Human Behavior, 36(3), 247–255), to data from a new experiment and to eight recent studies comparing simultaneous and sequential lineups. We found that although responses tended to be more conservative for sequential lineups there was little or no difference in underlying discriminability between the two procedures. We discuss the implications of these results for the diagnostic feature detection theory and other kinds of sequential lineups used in current jurisdictions.

Memory strength and lineup presentation moderate effects of administrator influence on mistaken identifications.

Administrator/witness pairs (N = 313) were randomly assigned to target-absent lineups in a 2 (Suspect/Perpetrator Similarity: High Suspect Similarity vs. Low Suspect Similarity) × 2 (Retention Interval: 30 min vs. 1 week) × 2 (Lineup Presentation: Simultaneous vs. Sequential) × 2 (Administrator Knowledge: Single-Blind vs. Double-Blind) factorial design to test whether suspect similarity and memory strength constrain interpersonal expectancy effects on eyewitness identification accuracy. Administrators who knew which lineup member was the suspect (single-blind) or who administered simultaneous lineups were more likely to emit verbal and nonverbal behaviors that suggested to the witness who the suspect was. Additionally, single-blind administrators exerted more pressure on witnesses to choose the suspect as opposed to fillers. Administrator knowledge interacted with retention interval and lineup presentation to influence mistaken identifications of innocent suspects; witnesses were more likely to mistakenly identify an innocent suspect from single-blind than double-blind lineups when witness retention intervals were long and photographs were presented simultaneously. Contrary to our predictions, suspect/perpetrator similarity did not interact with other manipulated variables to influence identification decisions. Both sequential and double-blind procedures should be used to reduce the use of suggestive behavior during lineup administration. (PsycINFO Database Record

Supplemental Material for Memory Strength and Lineup Presentation Moderate Effects of Administrator Influence on Mistaken Identifications

Supplemental Material for Memory Strength and Lineup Presentation Moderate Effects of Administrator Influence on Mistaken Identifications

Field study of response accuracy and decision confidence with regard to lineup composition and lineup presentation

Response accuracy with regard to lineup composition (present/absent target) and presentation (simultaneous/sequential), as well as decision confidence as a predictor and postdictor of response accuracy, was tested in a field experiment (N = 426). Overall response accuracy was 43%. It was not found significant main effects of lineup presentation or composition or a significant interaction between these variables in regard to response accuracy. By using both traditional methods of lineups’ efficiency comparison, and novel approach – ROC analysis, either procedure superiority was not revealed. Prospective confidence did not relate to response accuracy, but correct identifications were made with more retrospective confidence than were incorrect identifications. In simultaneously presented target absent lineups and sequentially presented target present lineups, correct identification resulted in a statistically significant higher level of retrospective confidence than did incorrect identifications. Participants were over-confident in their accuracy. The calibration curve, plotted for choosers, based on retrospective decision confidence was meaningful, but far from linear, while calibration curve based on prospective decision was flat. Thus the sequential lineup may not be superior to the simultaneous lineup and confidence may not be a very reliable indicator of accuracy in field setting, regardless of approach used for data analysis.

Eyewitness identification: Bayesian information gain, base-rate effect equivalency curves, and reasonable suspicion.

We provide a novel Bayesian treatment of the eyewitness identification problem as it relates to various system variables, such as instruction effects, lineup presentation format, lineup-filler similarity, lineup administrator influence, and show-ups versus lineups. We describe why eyewitness identification is a natural Bayesian problem and how numerous important observations require careful consideration of base rates. Moreover, we argue that the base rate in eyewitness identification should be construed as a system variable (under the control of the justice system). We then use prior-by-posterior curves and information-gain curves to examine data obtained from a large number of published experiments. Next, we show how information-gain curves are moderated by system variables and by witness confidence and we note how information-gain curves reveal that lineups are consistently more proficient at incriminating the guilty than they are at exonerating the innocent. We then introduce a new type of analysis that we developed called base rate effect-equivalency (BREE) curves. BREE curves display how much change in the base rate is required to match the impact of any given system variable. The results indicate that even relatively modest changes to the base rate can have more impact on the reliability of eyewitness identification evidence than do the traditional system variables that have received so much attention in the literature. We note how this Bayesian analysis of eyewitness identification has implications for the question of whether there ought to be a reasonable-suspicion criterion for placing a person into the jeopardy of an identification procedure.

An evaluation of lineup presentation, weapon presence, and a distinctive feature using ROC analysis

We conducted an experiment (N=2675) including both laboratory and online participants to test hypotheses regarding important system and estimator variables for eyewitness identification. Simultaneous lineups were compared to sequential lineups with the suspect presented early versus late because there is evidence that suspect position could be an important factor determining a simultaneous versus sequential advantage in guilty-innocent suspect discriminability. We also manipulated whether or not the perpetrator held a weapon or had a distinctive feature on his face, to re-evaluate recent evidence that these factors interact. Overall, the simultaneous lineup yielded higher discriminability than the sequential lineup, and there was no effect of sequential position. Discriminability was higher when the perpetrator had no weapon, but only when no distinctive feature was present. We conclude with a discussion of the importance of exploring interactions between system and estimator variables using Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analysis.

Individual differences predict eyewitness identification performance

A great deal of research has focused on eyewitness identification performance as a function of sequential versus simultaneous lineup presentation methods. We examined if individual differences in cognitive ability influence eyewitness identification, and whether these factors lead to performance differences as a function of lineup presentation method. We found that individual differences in facial recognition ability, working memory capacity, and levels of autistic traits, did result in differential performance. Differences in lineup performance are due to the interaction of individual differences and presentation method, signaling that it is possible to enhance the accuracy of eyewitness identifications by tailoring a lineup presentation method to the capabilities of an individual eyewitness.

Sequential lineup presentation promotes less-biased criterion setting but does not improve discriminability.

When compared with simultaneous lineup presentation, sequential presentation has been shown to reduce false identifications to a greater extent than it reduces correct identifications. However, there has been much debate about whether this difference in identification performance represents improved discriminability or more conservative responding. In this research, data from 22 experiments that compared sequential and simultaneous lineups were analyzed using a compound signal-detection model, which is specifically designed to describe decision-making performance on tasks such as eyewitness identification tests. Sequential (cf. simultaneous) presentation did not influence discriminability, but produced a conservative shift in response bias that resulted in less-biased choosing for sequential than simultaneous lineups. These results inform understanding of the effects of lineup presentation mode on eyewitness identification decisions.

A comparison of presentation methods of video identification parades

Researchers have demonstrated that sequential lineup presentation reduces false identifications from perpetrator absent lineups. In England and Wales police identification parades are shown on video in a sequential manner. However, police sequential presentation varies from the strict sequential presentation advocated by researchers. In addition, after police have shown the sequential presentation they also have the option to show witnesses a matrix of the parade where witnesses can see all members of the parade simultaneously. The research reported investigated the effect of strict sequential presentation, police sequential presentation and police sequential presentation plus matrix on mock witnesses' performance on perpetrator present and absent video identification parades. Strict sequential presentation led to fewer correct identifications of the perpetrator than police sequential and police sequential plus matrix, with no difference in performance between either of the police conditions. For perpetrator absent lineups there was no effect of lineup presentation condition on lineup performance. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Eyewitness identification tests

When investigating crimes police frequently use eyewitness identification tests such as lineups in an attempt to establish the culprit's identity. It is now well documented that witnesses commonly make mistakes, sometimes identifying innocent suspects or failing to identify the culprit. Lineup administrators also make mistakes in the sense that they use procedures that increase the likelihood of eyewitness error. Eyewitness memory research has provided a basis for many useful guidelines regarding the conduct of identification tests. Here, we review the relevant research underpinning effective procedures for lineup construction, lineup presentation, recording the witness's decision, and providing feedback to the witness. The systematic implementation of these guidelines is likely to reduce significantly the extent of eyewitness errors at the identification test and improve the probative value of courtroom testimony about identity. However, further significant advances may well require the development of novel procedures for accessing witnesses' memories.

Sequential lineup presentation: Patterns and policy

Sequential lineups were offered as an alternative to the traditional simultaneous lineup. Sequential lineups reduce incorrect lineup selections; however, the accompanying loss of correct identifications has resulted in controversy regarding adoption of the technique. We discuss the procedure and research relevant to (1) the pattern of results found using sequential versus simultaneous lineups; (2) reasons (theory) for differences in witness responses; (3) two methodological issues; and (4) implications for policy decisions regarding the adoption of sequential lineups.

Response to Lindsay, Mansour, Beaudry, Leach and Bertrand's Sequential lineup presentation: Patterns and policy

This paper is a response to the earlier paper by Lindsay, Mansour, Beaudry, Leach and Bertrand (2009). We argue that eyewitness research is an important public good and that high‐quality in research and policy formulations offered to the public interest is required to maintain our standing of trust. We argue that even though sequential lineups have been successfully codified in some jurisdictions as the exclusive eyewitness identification procedure, the claim of sequential superiority is built upon errors in the research process and that the evidence of reduced false identification with sequential lineups is completely offset by reductions in correct identifications. We reject the idea that the loss of correct identifications can be dismissed as guessing on the basis that this is speculative and that there is no published empirical support for the idea. We reject the idea that false identifications are necessarily more valuable for society to reduce than are correct identifications to achieve. Improvements in eyewitness identification are important, and interesting lines of investigation are available. It is questionable whether the sequential lineup is important among them.

Instruction bias and lineup presentation moderate the effects of administrator knowledge on eyewitness identification.

Pairs (N=234) of witnesses and lineup administrators completed an identification task in which administrator knowledge, lineup presentation, instruction bias, and target presence were manipulated. Administrator knowledge had the greatest effect on identifications of the suspect for simultaneous photospreads paired with biased instructions, with single-blind administrations increasing identifications of the suspect. When biased instructions were given, single-blind administrations produced fewer foil identifications than double-blind administrations. Administrators exhibited a greater proportion of biasing behaviors during single-blind administrations than during double-blind administrations. The diagnosticity of identifications of the suspect in double-blind administrations was double their diagnosticity in single-blind administrations. These results suggest that when biasing factors are present to increase a witness's propensity to guess, single-blind administrator behavior influences witnesses to identify the suspect.

The effects of different presentation methods on multi-ethnicity face recognition

Two experiments are reported that examine the effect on later recognition of presenting simultaneously several targets of different ethnicity. In experiment 1, a novel target presentation method was used where participants (children, n=65 and young adults, n=62) were shown a stimulus face sheet of four different race faces followed by a sequential larger (target present/absent) multi-ethnic recognition set. In experiment 2 three different sequential presentation methods were compared in young adults (n=225) that consisted of either (i) make decision (‘seen before’ vs ‘not seen before’) for each of the faces in the whole sequential recognition set; or (ii) make only ‘seen before’ decisions for the whole sequential recognition set; or (iii) a separate sequential lineup for each ethnicity where for each lineup the participants saw all the faces in that lineup and then had to make a decision (target present or absent). Own-race faces were more often correctly rejected (and less falsely identified in experiment 2) than other-race faces. For other-race faces, correct recognition decreased when similar foils were presented before targets in the recognition set but this did not occur for own-race faces. The effect of sequential lineup presentation method emerged for other-race faces favouring separate ethnicity lineups.

On the diagnosticity of multiple-witness identifications.

It is not uncommon for there to be multiple eyewitnesses to a crime, each of whom is later shown a lineup. How is the probative value, or diagnosticity, of such multiple-witness identifications to be evaluated? Previous treatments have focused on the diagnosticity of a single eyewitness's response to a lineup (Wells and Lindsay, Psychol. Bull. 3 (1980) 776); however, the results of eyewitness identification experiments indicate that the responses of multiple independent witnesses may often be inconsistent. The present paper calculates response diagnosticity for multiple witnesses and shows how diagnostic probabilities change across various combinations of consistent and inconsistent witness responses. Multiple-witness diagnosticity is examined across variation in the conditions of observation, lineup composition, and lineup presentation. In general, the diagnostic probabilities of guilt were shown to increase with the addition of suspect identifications and decrease with the addition of nonidentifications. Foil identification results were more complicated-diagnostic of innocence in many cases, but nondiagnostic or diagnostic of innocence in biased lineups. These analyses illustrate the importance of securing clear records of all witness responses, rather than myopically focusing on the witness who identified the suspect while ignoring those witnesses who did not.

Children's identification of faces from lineups: The effects of lineup presentation and instructions on accuracy.

The authors investigated whether the type of lineup and instructions given to children 6-7 or 9-10 years of age affected their identification accuracy. Children witnessed a man stealing property and were later asked to identify him in either photo or video lineups. Some lineups contained the target and some did not. Two lineup procedures were used (standard or elimination), and 2 types of instruction were used (standard or cautioning about false identification). Standard lineups with cautioning instructions decreased target-absent errors with no associated reduction in correct identifications, but elimination lineups did not. Lineup media had an interaction effect whereby correct identifications were reduced in video but not photo elimination lineups. The results are discussed in a forensic context.

Aiding the Performance of Older Eyewitnesses: Enhanced Non-Biased Line-Up Instructions and Line-Up Presentation

The study examined possible methods for improving the performance of older eyewitnesses on identification line-ups. Young and old adults viewed a simulated crime event involving a young and old perpetrator, and were subsequently asked to identify these two perpetrators from line-ups that were either target present (TP) or target absent (TA). Research conducted by the present authors indicates that older adults have significant problems with remembering instructions informing them that the perpetrator may or may not be present in the line-up and this may contribute to the age deficit in line-up performance. Therefore, in the present study, prior to the line-ups, half the participants received enhanced non-biased line-up instructions. Furthermore, the performance age deficit demonstrated by older adults in previous relevant studies is largely characterised by an increase in false identifications. The sequential line-up is known to reduce false identifications. Therefore, half the participants viewed line-ups that were presented sequentially and half viewed line-ups that were presented simultaneously. Older participants were found overall to demonstrate poorer line-up performance compared to younger participants. Though enhanced line-up instructions led to significantly better memory concerning the possibility the perpetrator may or may not be present in the line-up, they had no significant effect on line-up performance. Line-up presentation (sequential vs. simultaneous) had differential effects across conditions, with sequential presentation not always being beneficial.