Sequential Lineups Research Articles

Eyewitness identification in simultaneous and sequential lineups: an investigation of position effects using receiver operating characteristics

ABSTRACTFor decades, sequential lineups have been considered superior to simultaneous lineups in the context of eyewitness identification. However, most of the research leading to this conclusion was based on the analysis of diagnosticity ratios that do not control for the respondent’s response criterion. Recent research based on the analysis of ROC curves has found either equal discriminability for sequential and simultaneous lineups, or higher discriminability for simultaneous lineups. Some evidence for potential position effects and for criterion shifts in sequential lineups has also been reported. Using ROC curve analysis, we investigated the effects of the suspect’s position on discriminability and response criteria in both simultaneous and sequential lineups. We found that sequential lineups suffered from an unwanted position effect. Respondents employed a strict criterion for the earliest lineup positions, and shifted to a more liberal criterion for later positions. No position effects and no criterion shifts were observed in simultaneous lineups. This result suggests that sequential lineups are not superior to simultaneous lineups, and may give rise to unwanted position effects that have to be considered when conducting police lineups.

The impact of fillers on lineup performance

Filler siphoning theory posits that the presence of fillers (known innocents) in a lineup protects an innocent suspect from being chosen by siphoning choices away from that innocent suspect. This mechanism has been proposed as an explanation for why simultaneous lineups (viewing all lineup members at once) induces better performance than showups (one-person identification procedures). We implemented filler siphoning in a computational model (WITNESS, Clark, Applied Cognitive Psychology 17:629–654, 2003), and explored the impact of the number of fillers (lineup size) and filler quality on simultaneous and sequential lineups (viewing lineups members in sequence), and compared both to showups. In limited situations, we found that filler siphoning can produce a simultaneous lineup performance advantage, but one that is insufficient in magnitude to explain empirical data. However, the magnitude of the empirical simultaneous lineup advantage can be approximated once criterial variability is added to the model. But this modification works by negatively impacting showups rather than promoting more filler siphoning. In sequential lineups, fillers were found to harm performance. Filler siphoning fails to clarify the relationship between simultaneous lineups and sequential lineups or showups. By incorporating constructs like filler siphoning and criterial variability into a computational model, and trying to approximate empirical data, we can sort through explanations of eyewitness decision-making, a prerequisite for policy recommendations.

Chatting in the face of the eyewitness: The impact of extraneous cell-phone conversation on memory for a perpetrator.

Cell-phone conversation is ubiquitous within public spaces. The current study investigates whether ignored cell-phone conversation impairs eyewitness memory for a perpetrator. Participants viewed a video of a staged crime in the presence of 1 side of a comprehensible cell-phone conversation (meaningful halfalogue), 2 sides of a comprehensible cell-phone conversation (meaningful dialogue), 1 side of an incomprehensible cell-phone conversation (meaningless halfalogue), or quiet. Between 24 and 28 hr later, participants freely described the perpetrator's face, constructed a single composite image of the perpetrator from memory, and attempted to identify the perpetrator from a sequential lineup. Further, participants rated the likeness of the composites to the perpetrator. Face recall and lineup identification were impaired when participants witnessed the staged crime in the presence of a meaningful halfalogue compared to a meaningless halfalogue, meaningful dialogue, or quiet. Moreover, likeness ratings showed that the composites constructed after ignoring the meaningful halfalogue resembled the perpetrator less than did those constructed after experiencing quiet or ignoring a meaningless halfalogue or a meaningful dialogue. The unpredictability of the meaningful content of the halfalogue, rather than its acoustic unexpectedness, produces distraction. The results are novel in that they suggest that an everyday distraction, even when presented in a different modality to target information, can impair the long-term memory of an eyewitness. (PsycINFO Database Record

Can Lineup Administrators Blind to the Suspect's Identity Influence Witnesses’ Decisions?

It is advocated that police lineup administrators should be blind to the identity of suspects to prevent them from influencing witnesses’ decisions. Yet, it has been found that a lineup administrator who is blind to the suspect's identity may bias a witness's decision if he or she has previously administered the lineup to another witness to the same crime. In the present two experiments these findings are examined and expanded upon. Administrators blind to the suspect's identity presented a sequential lineup to a confederate and then a naïve witness under the manipulations of the confederate witness's decisiveness, confidence and decision speed. The findings of the previous study were not replicated; however, the second witness identifications matched the confederate's selection significantly more often when the confederate's decision was rapid rather than slow. Given the potentially dire consequences of such an effect, it is argued that different blind lineup administrators should be used for each witness to a crime.

Relative judgment theory and the mediation of facial recognition: Implications for theories of eyewitness identification.

Many in the eyewitness identification community believe that sequential lineups are superior to simultaneous lineups because simultaneous lineups encourage inappropriate choosing due to promoting comparisons among choices (a relative judgment strategy), but sequential lineups reduce this propensity by inducing comparisons of lineup members directly to memory rather than to each other (an absolute judgment strategy). Different versions of the relative judgment theory have implicated both discrete-state and continuous mediation of eyewitness decisions. The theory has never been formally specified, but (Yonelinas, J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 20:1341–1354, 1994) dual-process models provide one possible specification, thereby allowing us to evaluate how eyewitness decisions are mediated. We utilized a ranking task (Kellen and Klauer, J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 40:1795–1804, 2014) and found evidence for continuous mediation when facial stimuli match from study to test (Experiment 1) and when they mismatch (Experiment 2). This evidence, which is contrary to a version of relative judgment theory that has gained a lot of traction in the legal community, compels reassessment of the role that guessing plays in eyewitness identification. Future research should continue to test formal explanations in order to advance theory, expedite the development of new procedures that can enhance the reliability of eyewitness evidence, and to facilitate the exploration of task factors and emergent strategies that might influence when recognition is continuously or discretely mediated.

The Effect of Backloading Instructions on Eyewitness Identification from Simultaneous and Sequential Lineups

SummaryThe sequential lineup is multifaceted, including serial presentation of faces, multiple decisions, and often backloading (indicating to an eyewitness that a lineup contains more photos than there actually are). We evaluated the effect of backloading instructions on response bias and sensitivity with an eyewitness identification paradigm. Importantly, we included an ‘undisclosed’ condition that provided no information to participants about the number of lineup members to expect. Experiment 1 (N = 780) tested sequential lineups; Experiment 2 (N = 532) tested simultaneous lineups. As predicted, signal detection analysis showed that backloading induced participants to be more conservative in choosing from both lineup types, but did not affect d′. We conclude that the criminal justice system should be mindful of this shift in response bias, as it has implications for both guilty and innocent suspect identifications. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Blind sequential lineup administration reduces both false identifications and confidence in those false identifications.

One of the most recommended procedures proposed by eyewitness experts is the use of double-blind lineups, in which the administrator does not know the identity of the suspect in the lineup. But despite the near universality of this recommendation, there is surprisingly little empirical research to support the claim that nonblind administration inflates false identifications. What little research has been conducted has shown conflicting findings with regard to the conditions under which nonblind administration affects false identifications, as well as its effects on witness confidence. The current study attempts to elucidate this effect. Student-participants (n = 312) were randomly assigned to play the role of either a lineup administrator (who were either told the identity of the suspect in the lineup or not) or a mock crime witness. Following unbiased instructions, administrators presented either a target-present or target-absent sequential lineup to the witness while being surreptitiously videorecorded. Nonblind administration significantly inflated false, but not correct, identifications, and significantly inflated witness confidence in those false identifications. Video recordings indicated that nonblind administrators were significantly more likely than blind administrators to smile (a) while the witness was viewing a photograph of the suspect, and (b) after a suspect identification. Results provide stronger support for the use of blind lineup administration by broadening the conditions under which nonblind administration is shown to inflate false identifications. Possible reconciliations for conflicting findings in the literature are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record

Estimating the reliability of eyewitness identifications from police lineups

Laboratory-based mock crime studies have often been interpreted to mean that (i) eyewitness confidence in an identification made from a lineup is a weak indicator of accuracy and (ii) sequential lineups are diagnostically superior to traditional simultaneous lineups. Largely as a result, juries are increasingly encouraged to disregard eyewitness confidence, and up to 30% of law enforcement agencies in the United States have adopted the sequential procedure. We conducted a field study of actual eyewitnesses who were assigned to simultaneous or sequential photo lineups in the Houston Police Department over a 1-y period. Identifications were made using a three-point confidence scale, and a signal detection model was used to analyze and interpret the results. Our findings suggest that (i) confidence in an eyewitness identification from a fair lineup is a highly reliable indicator of accuracy and (ii) if there is any difference in diagnostic accuracy between the two lineup formats, it likely favors the simultaneous procedure.

The Role of Site Variance in the American Judicature Society Field Study Comparing Simultaneous and Sequential Lineups

Police departments often use photo lineups for eyewitness identification purposes. A widely adopted lineup reform designed to reduce eyewitness misidentifications involves switching from the standard simultaneous photo presentation format to a sequential format. These two lineup procedures were recently tested in the American Judicature Society (AJS) field study, which was conducted in four different police jurisdictions. The results from two phases of that investigation reached opposite conclusions as to which lineup procedure is superior, and the purpose of our current investigation was to elucidate the role of site variance in shaping those contrasting conclusions. In previous analyses, the field study data were either (1) aggregated across all four study sites or (2) drawn from only one study site (Austin, Texas). Here, we analyze the data separately for the Austin study site, where 69 % of the eyewitnesses were tested, and the other three study sites combined, where 31 % of the eyewitnesses were tested. The results indicate significant site variance between the Austin and non-Austin study sites. In addition, the results suggest that aggregating the data across sites played a determinative role in creating the apparent disagreement about which lineup procedure is diagnostically superior. Once large differences across the AJS study sites are taken into consideration, there is no longer any disagreement about which lineup procedure is superior. The simultaneous procedure is diagnostically superior to the sequential procedure, but the sequential procedure sometimes induces more conservative responding (a result that can and often does masquerade as diagnostic superiority).

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.

The effects of allowing a second sequential lineup lap on choosing and probative value.

When presented with a sequential lineup, witnesses see each member of the lineup individually, essentially making a yes/no decision for each person shown. An important policy question is whether witnesses should be allowed to see an additional lap of a sequential lineup. We investigated the impact of a second lap on eyewitness decision making and on the probative value of suspect identifications. We recruited a large community sample of participants (N 393), each of whom viewed a target person before seeing a sequential lineup that did or did not include the target. A second lap was either required or optional. The group of participants who accepted the second lap were less able to discriminate between the target and the fillers and responded more conservatively in Lap 1 than the group of witnesses who declined the second lap. Responding became more lenient from Lap 1 to Lap 2. Of the participants who saw a second lap, roughly 40% changed their response, most frequently from a nonidentification to an identification. Both culprit identifications and filler identifications increased from Lap 1 to Lap 2. The probative value of suspect identifications was not significantly different whether witnesses were allowed 2 laps or 1. However, the observed effects may be moderated by a number of system and estimator variables. Further, even small changes in probative value can have very different consequences depending upon the target-absent base rate.

An unrepresentative sample is unrepresentative regardless of the reason: a rejoinder to Amendola and Wixted

Objective Our objective was to assess Amendola and Wixted’s (Journal of Experimental Criminology, 2015b, this issue) response to our critique of their conclusions regarding simultaneous and sequential lineups.

No possibility of a selection bias, but direct evidence of a simultaneous superiority effect: a reply to Wells et al.

The AJS field study was conducted across four different sites (Austin, Texas; Tucson, Arizona; Charlotte-Mecklenburg, North Carolina; and San Diego, California), but nearly 70 % of the lineups were administered at the Austin, Texas site alone. To retain most of the data while eliminating site variance (in an effort to maximize power), our evidentiary strength ratings study was limited to the lineups administered in Austin. We found that suspects identified from those simultaneous and sequential lineups were more likely to be associated with independent evidence of guilt if they had been identified from a simultaneous lineup than from a sequential lineup. In other words, we observed a significant simultaneous superiority effect. Wells et al. (this issue) point out that the simultaneous suspects were also more likely to be adjudicated guilty (77.3 % of simultaneous suspects were adjudicated guilty against 53.3 % of sequential suspects), which they regard as evidence of a sampling bias. However, all suspect ID cases from Austin that could possibly be included in our ratings study were included (i.e., we did not randomly sample a subset of suspect ID cases). Thus, what appears to be a selection bias to Wells et al. is actually further direct evidence of a simultaneous superiority effect.

Configural and component processing in simultaneous and sequential lineup procedures

Configural processing supports accurate face recognition, yet it has never been examined within the context of criminal identification lineups. We tested, using the inversion paradigm, the role of configural processing in lineups. Recent research has found that face discrimination accuracy in lineups is better in a simultaneous compared to a sequential lineup procedure. Therefore, we compared configural processing in simultaneous and sequential lineups to examine whether there are differences. We had participants view a crime video, and then they attempted to identify the perpetrator from a simultaneous or sequential lineup. The test faces were presented either upright or inverted, as previous research has shown that inverting test faces disrupts configural processing. The size of the inversion effect for faces was the same across lineup procedures, indicating that configural processing underlies face recognition in both procedures. Discrimination accuracy was comparable across lineup procedures in both the upright and inversion condition. Theoretical implications of the results are discussed.

The flaw in Amendola and Wixted’s conclusion on simultaneous versus sequential lineups

Objective Our objective was to examine how Amendola and Wixted (A&W, 2014) arrived at their conclusion that eyewitness identifications of suspects from simultaneous lineups were supported better by corroborating evidence than were identifications from sequential lineups. Their cases came from a randomized field experiment by Wells et al. (2014).

Running head: Relative judgment. When the relative judgment theory proved to be false

A commonly accepted theory is that when witnesses can identify culprits in lineups, they will concentrate on him. On the other hand, when they cannot they compare between lineup members and choose the person most similar to the culprit. Therefore they will divide their gaze more equally between foils. An eye tracker was used with a 48-person lineup (four screens with twelve photos in each) in an attempt to demonstrate the superiority of gaze behavior over the verbal response. Surprisingly witnesses usually concentrated on some foil as much as they did on the target. Alternate theories are required to explain the reduction of false identifications in sequential lineups. The advantage of large lineups was demonstrated. Police may use them in conjunction with eye trackers to find culprits that witnesses focus on despite saying that they are absent, the only known method to increase correct identifications.

Double-blind photo lineups using actual eyewitnesses: an experimental test of a sequential versus simultaneous lineup procedure.

Eyewitnesses (494) to actual crimes in 4 police jurisdictions were randomly assigned to view simultaneous or sequential photo lineups using laptop computers and double-blind administration. The sequential procedure used in the field experiment mimicked how it is conducted in actual practice (e.g., using a continuation rule, witness does not know how many photos are to be viewed, witnesses resolve any multiple identifications), which is not how most lab experiments have tested the sequential lineup. No significant differences emerged in rates of identifying lineup suspects (25% overall) but the sequential procedure produced a significantly lower rate (11%) of identifying known-innocent lineup fillers than did the simultaneous procedure (18%). The simultaneous/sequential pattern did not significantly interact with estimator variables and no lineup-position effects were observed for either the simultaneous or sequential procedures. Rates of nonidentification were not significantly different for simultaneous and sequential but nonidentifiers from the sequential procedure were more likely to use the "not sure" response option than were nonidentifiers from the simultaneous procedure. Among witnesses who made an identification, 36% (41% of simultaneous and 32% of sequential) identified a known-innocent filler rather than a suspect, indicating that eyewitness performance overall was very poor. The results suggest that the sequential procedure that is used in the field reduces the identification of known-innocent fillers, but the differences are relatively small.

Supplemental Material for The Effects of Allowing a Second Sequential Lineup Lap on Choosing and Probative Value

Supplemental Material for The Effects of Allowing a Second Sequential Lineup Lap on Choosing and Probative Value

Comparing the diagnostic accuracy of suspect identifications made by actual eyewitnesses from simultaneous and sequential lineups in a randomized field trial

Eyewitness misidentifications have been implicated in many of the DNA exoneration cases that have come to light in recent years. One reform designed to address this problem involves switching from simultaneous lineups to sequential lineups, and our goal was to test the diagnostic accuracy of these two procedures using actual eyewitnesses. In a recent randomized field trial comparing the performance of simultaneous and sequential lineups in the real world, suspect ID rates were found to be similar for the two procedures. Filler ID rates were found to be slightly (but, in the key test, nonsignificantly) higher for simultaneous than sequential lineups, but fillers will not be prosecuted even if identified. Moreover, filler IDs may not provide reliable information about innocent suspect IDs. Here, we use two different proxy measures for ground truth of guilt versus innocence for suspects identified from simultaneous or sequential lineups in that same field study. The results indicate that innocent suspects are, if anything, less likely to be mistakenly identified—and guilty suspects are more likely to be correctly identified—from simultaneous lineups compared to sequential lineups. Filler identifications are not necessarily predictive of the more consequential error of misidentifying an innocent suspect. With regard to actual suspect identifications, simultaneous lineups are diagnostically superior to sequential lineups. These findings are consistent with recent laboratory-based studies using receiver operating characteristic analysis suggesting that simultaneous lineups make it easier for eyewitnesses to tell the difference between innocent and guilty suspects.

Hits, Misses, and False Alarms in Simultaneous and Sequential Lineups

Studies indicate that sequential lineups decrease the rate of false alarms at the cost of increasing the rate of lost hits. This paper discusses how policymakers should assess this data, considering measures of probative value and the preference for false acquittals over false convictions. It compares sequential to simultaneous lineups and discusses the compromise position of allowing a second lap to witnesses who do not make an identification after first viewing a sequential lineup.