Sequential Lineups Research Articles

Lineup position affects guessing-based selection but not culprit-presence detection in simultaneous and sequential lineups

AbstractThe two-high threshold eyewitness identification model was applied to investigate the effects of lineup position on the latent cognitive processes underlying eyewitness responses in lineups. In two experiments with large sample sizes and random assignment of culprits and innocent suspects to all possible lineup positions, we examined how detection-based and non-detection-based processes vary across the positions of six-person photo lineups. Experiment 1 (N = 2586) served to investigate position effects in simultaneous lineups in which all photos were presented in a single row. Experiment 2 (N = 2581) was focused on sequential lineups. In both experiments, lineup position had no effect on the detection of the presence of the culprit. Guessing-based selection, in contrast, differed as a function of lineup position. Specifically, a lineup member placed in the first position in a lineup was significantly more likely to be selected based on guessing than lineup members placed in other positions. These results justify the practice of avoiding to place the suspect in the first position in a lineup, as this placement increases the suspect’s chance of being selected based on guessing.

Reflector variables in augmented reality lineups: Assessing eyewitness identification reliability in children and adults with confidence, response time, and proximity to the lineup.

Attending to the behaviors of eyewitnesses at police lineups could help to determine whether an eyewitness identification is accurate or mistaken. Eyewitness identification decision processes were explored using augmented reality holograms. Children (n = 143; Mage = 10.79, SD = 1.12 years) and adults (n = 152; Mage = 22.12, SD = 7.47 years) viewed staged crime videos and made identification decisions from sequential lineups. The lineups were presented in augmented reality. Children were less accurate than adults on the lineup task. For adults, fast response times and high post-identification confidence ratings were both reflective of identification accuracy. Fast response times were also reflective of accuracy for children; however, children's confidence ratings did not reflect the likely accuracy of their identifications. A new additional measure, the witness' proximity to the augmented reality lineup, revealed that children who made mistaken identifications moved closer to the lineup than children who correctly identified the person from the crime video. Adults who moved any distance towards the lineup were less accurate than adults who did not move at all, but beyond that, adults' proximity to the lineup was not reflective of accuracy. The findings give further evidence that behavioral indicators of deliberation and information-seeking by eyewitnesses are signals of low lineup identification reliability. The findings also suggest that when assessing the reliability of children's lineup identifications, behavioral measures are more useful than metacognitive reports.

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.

The effects of lineup size on the processes underlying eyewitness decisions

Here we apply the two-high threshold eyewitness identification model to identify the effects of lineup size on the detection-based and non-detection-based processes underlying eyewitness decisions. In Experiment 1, lineup size was manipulated by showing participants simultaneous or sequential lineups that contained either three or six persons. In Experiment 2, the lineups contained either two or five persons. In both experiments, the culprit was better detected in smaller than in larger lineups. Furthermore, participants made fewer guessing-based selections in smaller than in larger lineups. However, guessing-based selection in larger lineups was not increased to a level sufficient to offset the effect of increased protection of suspects in larger lineups due to the fact that the guessing-based selections that occur are distributed across more persons. The results show that increasing the lineup size causes several changes in the detection-based and non-detection-based processes underlying eyewitness decisions.

Appearances can be deceiving: how naturalistic changes to target appearance impact on lineup-based decision-making

ABSTRACT The present study examined the influence of appearance, procedure and position on identification decisions, post-decisional confidence ratings and estimates of discrimination and confidence-specific accuracy. Regarding appearance, the study examined the combined influence of three naturalistic changes that occur day-to-day (i.e. a reduction in cranial hair length, the removal of stubble, and a change of clothing), two of which have not been considered before in a lineup-decision context. Participants (N = 350) completed four experimental lineups which involved: viewing a target person, completing a brief distractor task, and making an identification decision and a post-decisional confidence rating from a photographic lineup. Participants were randomly allocated to complete simultaneous or sequential lineups, with appearance (no change, change), position (early, late) and target (present, absent) systematically varied across the four trials. Appearance affected all dependent measures and was particularly influential in target-present lineups. Naturalistic changes to target appearance reliably decreased correct identification rates, confidence in correct identifications, discrimination accuracy, and confidence-specific accuracy. Procedure and position, by contrast, had a more limited impact. Of concern for the criminal justice system, neither procedure nor position manipulations offset any reductions in lineup-decision accuracy when target appearance changed.

Evaluating the impact of first-yes-counts instructions on eyewitness performance using the two-high threshold eyewitness identification model

In eyewitness research, multiple identification decisions in sequential lineups are typically prevented by telling participants that only their first identification decision counts. These first-yes-counts instructions are incompatible with standard police protocols prescribing that witnesses shall see the entire lineup. Horry et al. were the first to experimentally test how this discrepancy between eyewitness research and standard police protocols affects eyewitness identification decisions. Here, the two-high threshold eyewitness identification model was used to disentangle the effect of the first-yes-counts instructions on the detection and guessing processes underlying eyewitness identification decisions. We report both a reanalysis of Horry et al.’s data and a conceptual replication. Both the reanalysis and the results of the conceptual replication confirm that first-yes-counts instructions do not affect the detection of the culprit but decrease the probability of guessing-based selections. To improve the ecological validity, research on sequential lineups should avoid first-yes-counts instructions.

Toward a more comprehensive modeling of sequential lineups

Sequential lineups are one of the most commonly used procedures in police departments across the USA. Although this procedure has been the target of much experimental research, there has been comparatively little work formally modeling it, especially the sequential nature of the judgments that it elicits. There are also important gaps in our understanding of how informative different types of judgments can be (binary responses vs. confidence ratings), and the severity of the inferential risks incurred when relying on different aggregate data structures. Couched in a signal detection theory (SDT) framework, the present work directly addresses these issues through a reanalysis of previously published data alongside model simulations. Model comparison results show that SDT modeling can provide elegant characterizations of extant data, despite some discrepancies across studies, which we attempt to address. Additional analyses compare the merits of sequential lineups (with and without a stopping rule) relative to showups and delineate the conditions in which distinct modeling approaches can be informative. Finally, we identify critical issues with the removal of the stopping rule from sequential lineups as an approach to capture within-subject differences and sidestep the risk of aggregation biases.

A model of position effects in the sequential lineup

What is the effect of placing the suspect in different positions in a sequential lineup? To explore this question, we developed and applied a model called the Independent Sequential Lineup model which analyzes a sequential lineup in terms of both identification position, the position at which the witness identifies a lineup item as the target, and target position, the position at which the target or suspect appears. We conducted a large-scale online eyewitness memory experiment with 7,204 participants each of whom was tested on a 6-item sequential lineup with an explicit stopping rule. The model fit these data well and revealed systematic effects of lineup position on underlying discriminability and response criteria. We also fit the model to data from a similar pair of experiments conducted recently by Wilson, Donnelly, Christenfeld and Wixted (2019; Journal of Memory and Language, 104, 108–125) both with and without application of a stopping rule. In all data sets, if a stopping rule is applied, underlying discriminability was found to be constant, or to increase slightly, across target position. In the absence of a stopping rule, discriminability was found to decrease substantially. We also observed a substantial increase in response criteria following presentation of the target. We discuss the implications of these findings for current theories of recognition memory and current applications of the sequential lineup in different jurisdictions.

Can Familiarity Between an Adolescent Eyewitness and a Perpetrator Influence Identification Accuracy?

Most eyewitness research focuses on stranger identifications, despite the fact that eyewitnesses may also be asked to identify a familiar person. The current study examined the role of eyewitness-perpetrator familiarity and line-up procedure on adolescent eyewitness identification accuracy. Familiarity was manipulated wherein participants (N = 623) directly interacted, indirectly interacted, or did not meet a confederate before viewing the confederate commit a mock crime. Lineup procedure (simultaneous, sequential, elimination-plus) and target presence were manipulated. Familiarity increased the likelihood of correct identifications in target-present lineups when the sequential lineup procedure was used, whereas familiarity increased the likelihood of correct rejections in target-absent lineups when the simultaneous or elimination-plus procedures were used. These findings suggest that familiarity with a perpetrator can influence identification accuracy.

"Only your first yes will count": The impact of prelineup instructions on sequential lineup decisions.

When administering sequential lineups, researchers often inform their participants that only their first yes response will count. This instruction differs from the original sequential lineup protocol and from how sequential lineups are conducted in practice. Participants (N = 896) viewed a videotaped mock crime and viewed a simultaneous lineup, a sequential lineup with a first-yes-counts instruction, or a sequential control lineup (with no first-yes-counts instruction); the lineup was either target-present or target-absent. Participants in the first-yes-counts condition were less likely to identify the suspect and more likely to reject the lineup than participants in the simultaneous and sequential control conditions, suggesting a conservative criterion shift. The diagnostic value of suspect identifications, as measured by partial area under the curve, was lower in the first-yes-counts lineup than in the simultaneous lineup. Results were qualitatively similar for other metrics of diagnosticity, though the differences were not statistically significant. Differences between the simultaneous and sequential control lineups were negligible on all outcomes. The first-yes-counts instruction undermines sequential lineup performance and produces an artifactual simultaneous lineup advantage. Researchers should adhere to sequential lineup protocols that maximize diagnosticity and that would feasibly be implemented in practice, allowing them to draw more generalizable conclusions from their data. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Retraction of Mansour et al. (2012).

Reports the retraction of "Impact of disguise on identification decisions and confidence with simultaneous and sequential lineups" by Jamal K. Mansour, Jennifer L. Beaudry, Michelle I. Bertrand, Natalie Kalmet, Elisabeth I. Melsom and Roderick C. L. Lindsay (Law and Human Behavior, 2012[Dec], Vol 36[6], 513-526). The article reported two separate experiments and included a re-analysis of the data from both experiments combined. The authors recently discovered data entry and transformation errors that affected the descriptive and inferential results in both experiments and, to a small extent, the conclusions drawn following each individual experiment. The errors did not affect the overall conclusions described in the General Discussion section for both experiments beginning on p. 527. All of the authors joined in the request for this retraction. They accept and share responsibility for not identifying these errors prior to publication. The authors have agreed to correct the errors and we have accepted the revised manuscript, and it now published: "Impact of Disguise on Identification Decisions and Confidence With Simultaneous and Sequential Lineups" by Jamal K. Mansour, Jennifer L. Beaudry, Michelle I. Bertrand, Natalie Kalmet, Elisabeth I. Melsom, and Roderick C. L. Lindsay (Law and Human Behavior, 2020, Vol. 44, No. 6, 502-515. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000427). (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2012-04571-001.) Prior research indicates that disguise negatively affects lineup identifications, but the mechanisms by which disguise works have not been explored, and different disguises have not been compared. In two experiments (Ns = 87 and 91) we manipulated degree of coverage by two different types of disguise: a stocking mask or sunglasses and toque (i.e., knitted hat). Participants viewed mock-crime videos followed by simultaneous or sequential lineups. Disguise and lineup type did not interact. In support of the view that disguise prevents encoding, identification accuracy generally decreased with degree of disguise. For the stocking disguise, however, full and 2/3 coverage led to approximately the same rate of correct identifications-which suggests that disrupting encoding of specific features may be as detrimental as disrupting a whole face. Accuracy was most affected by sunglasses and we discuss the role metacognitions may have played. Lineup selections decreased more slowly than accuracy as coverage by disguise increased, indicating witnesses are insensitive to the effect of encoding conditions on accuracy. We also explored the impact of disguise and lineup type on witnesses' confidence in their lineup decisions, though the results were not straightforward. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Impact of disguise on identification decisions and confidence with simultaneous and sequential lineups.

Prior research indicates disguise negatively affects lineup identifications but the mechanisms by which disguise works have not been explored and different disguises have not been compared. We investigated how two different types of disguise, four levels of varying degrees of coverage, and lineup type influence eyewitnesses' identification decisions, accuracy, and confidence. We predicted that identification accuracy would decrease as the disguise covered more of a perpetrator's face. We also predicted that type of disguise-stocking mask versus sunglasses and/or toque (i.e., knitted hat)-would influence identifications, but we had conflicting predictions about which disguise would impair their performance more. In two experiments (Ns = 87 and 91) we manipulated degree of coverage by two different types of disguise: a stocking mask or sunglasses and toque. Participants viewed mock-crime videos followed by simultaneous or sequential lineups. Disguise and lineup type did not interact. In support of the view that disguise prevents encoding, identification accuracy generally decreased with degree of disguise. For the stocking disguise, however, full and 2/3 coverage led to approximately the same rate of correct identifications-which suggests that disrupting encoding of specific features may be as detrimental as disrupting a whole face. Accuracy was most affected by sunglasses and we discuss the role meta-cognitions may have played. Lineup selections decreased more slowly than accuracy as coverage by disguise increased, indicating witnesses are insensitive to the effect of encoding conditions on accuracy. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Supplemental Material for “Only Your First Yes Will Count”: The Impact of Prelineup Instructions on Sequential Lineup Decisions

Supplemental Material for “Only Your First Yes Will Count”: The Impact of Prelineup Instructions on Sequential Lineup Decisions

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.

Sdtlu: An R package for the signal detection analysis of eyewitness lineup data.

In a standard eyewitness lineup scenario, a witness observes a culprit commit a crime and is later asked to identify the culprit from a set of faces, the lineup. Signal detection theory (SDT), a powerful modeling framework for analyzing data, has recently become a common way to analyze lineup data. The goal of this paper is to introduce a new R package, sdtlu (Signal Detection Theory - LineUp), that streamlines and automates the SDT analysis of lineup data. sdtlu provides functions to process lineup data, determine the best-fitting SDT parameters, compute model-based performance measures such as area under the curve (AUC) and diagnosticity, use bootstrapping to determine uncertainty intervals around these parameters and measures, and compare parameters across two different data sets. The package incorporates closed-form solutions for both simultaneous and sequential lineups that allow for model-based analyses without Monte Carlo simulation. Show-ups are also supported. The package can estimate the base-rate of lineups that include a guilty suspect when the guilt or innocence of each suspect in the data set is unknown, as in "real-world" lineups. The package can also produce a full set of graphs, including data and model-based ROC curves and the underlying SDT model.

Line-Up Image Position in Simultaneous and Sequential Line-Ups: The Effects of Age and Viewing Distance on Selection Patterns.

It is known that children and older adults produce more false alarms in target absent line-ups and that weaker facial encoding increases choosing bias. However, there has been no investigation of how age or facial encoding strength impacts line-up position selections in either sequential or simultaneous line-ups. In the present study, we presented participants with four live targets (one by one) while manipulating sequential and simultaneous line-ups between participants and target present and target absent line-ups within participants. In order to investigate facial encoding strength, we presented the targets at distances between 5 and 110 m. Our main hypotheses were that children due to deficits with inhibition would be more biased toward indiscriminate selections in the first position of sequential line-ups compared with subsequent line-up positions and that first position selections would increase for all age groups as facial encoding became weaker. In simultaneous line-ups, we expected to find a top row bias. In our sample (N = 1,588 participants; 6–77 years), we found that younger children (6–11 years) and the oldest adults (60–77 years) showed a first position bias in sequential line-ups, and as facial encoding became weaker, all age groups (6–11, 12–17, 18–44, 45–59, and 60–77 years) showed an increased tendency to make first position selections. We also found a weak top row preference in simultaneous line-ups, which was moderated by age and increased distance. The main finding is that the results suggest that younger children and the oldest adults had a tendency toward a first position selection bias in sequential line-ups. Based on the combined results, we recommend caution when using sequential line-ups with younger children or older adults.

Identifying the guilty word: Simultaneous versus sequential lineups for DRM word lists.

Recent research in the eyewitness identification literature has investigated whether simultaneous or sequential lineups yield better discriminability. In standard eyewitness identification experiments, subjects view a mock-crime video and then are tested only once, requiring large samples for adequate power. However, there is no reason why theories of simultaneous versus sequential lineup performance cannot be tested using more traditional recognition memory tasks. In two experiments, subjects studied DRM (Deese-Roediger-McDermott) word lists (e.g., bed, rest, tired, ...) and were tested using "lineups" in which six words were presented either simultaneously or sequentially. A studied word (e.g., tired) served as the guilty suspect in target-present lineups, unstudied related words (e.g., nap) served as fillers in target-present and target-absent lineups, and critical lures (e.g., sleep) were included in some target-present and target-absent lineups as well, to serve as attractive alternatives to the target word (or suspect). ROC analyses showed that the simultaneous test format generally yielded superior discriminability performance compared to the sequential test format, whether or not the critical lure was present in the lineup.

The Confidence-Accuracy Relationship Using Scale Versus Other Methods of Assessing Confidence

Historically, researchers have collected eyewitness identification confidence using scales; however, in practice, eyewitnesses are more commonly asked for a verbal statement. In Experiment 1, participants viewed a simultaneous lineup and provided confidence in their own words, by explaining why they made their decision or by selecting from statements made by real eyewitnesses, and then provided a scale rating (0–100%) or provided only the scale rating. In Experiment 2, participants viewed a sequential lineup and provided confidence in their own words followed by the scale rating or provided only the scale rating. Confidence predicted identification accuracy in all conditions, although verbal statements were highly variable and challenging to interpret. For example, only when scale-based confidence was high (80%+) did interpretation of the verbal confidence statement reliably align with scale-based confidence. These data highlight the complexity of verbal confidence statements and the need to establish meaningful boundaries for interpreting verbal confidence statements.

Making sense of sequential lineups: An experimental and theoretical analysis of position effects

Abstract As part of a criminal investigation, the police often administer a recognition memory task known as a photo lineup. A typical 6-person photo lineup consists of one suspect (who may or may not be guilty) and five physically similar foils (all known to be innocent). The photos can be shown simultaneously (i.e., all at once) or sequentially (i.e., one at a time). Approximately 30% of U.S. police departments have moved to using the sequential lineup procedure over the last 30 years, yet its theoretical underpinnings remain poorly understood. A simple signal detection model makes several unexpected predictions about how the sequential lineup procedure should affect the ability of eyewitnesses to discriminate innocent from guilty suspects. For example, empirical discriminability (area under the receiver operating characteristic) should decrease as the position of the suspect in the lineup increases. In addition, under some conditions, a fair sequential lineup should not yield higher discriminability than a single-person (non-lineup) recognition test known as a showup. The results of two experiments reported here confirmed these predictions. Counterintuitively, even though empirical discriminability decreased as the suspect’s sequential position increased, a signal detection model fit to the data indicated that theoretical discriminability exhibited a small effect in the opposite direction (increasing with the sequential position of the suspect). The latter result is consistent with diagnostic feature-detection theory of eyewitness identification.

The Effect of Facial Composite Construction on Eyewitness Identification Accuracy in an Ecologically Valid Paradigm

Previous research has produced equivocal results with regard to whether facial composite creation affects subsequent eyewitness identification accuracy, but the most widely publicized view is that creating a composite impairs the ability to later recognize the perpetrator from a line-up. In our first experiment, we examined this effect using several ecologically valid elements including a live staged crime, trained police officers, and a long delay between construction and identification, albeit with only a short delay between crime and composite construction. Composite construction did not significantly affect line-up identification accuracy. Experiment 2 replicated this result using a laboratory-based design and sequential line-up task, eliminating the possibly confounding effect of differential levels of motivation and relative judgments. Taken together, the experiments suggest composite creation may not negatively impact subsequent line-up accuracy, regardless of whether an ecologically valid method or more standard laboratory testing was used.