Sequential Lineups Research Articles

Evidence of differential performance on simultaneous and sequential lineups for individuals with autism-spectrum traits

Given the impaired facial recognition of autistic individuals, we examined whether certain autism-spectrum traits affected eyewitness identification performance in a general adult population. In a sample of 120 individuals, levels of autism-spectrum traits were examined in relation to performance on simultaneous vs. sequential lineups using a signal detection paradigm. For simultaneous lineups, total Autism Spectrum Quotient (AQ) scores and scores on the excessive Attention to detail subscale were related to fewer hits and a more conservative response criterion. Attention to detail interacted with lineup type in that it was significantly related to improved discrimination accuracy and a less conservative response criterion in sequential lineups, but with impaired discrimination accuracy and a more conservative response criterion in simultaneous lineups. Higher AQ scores on the Attention switching subscale resulted in fewer hits, lower discrimination accuracy, and a more conservative response criterion with sequential lineups. Additionally, partial disguises led to more false alarms but not decreased accuracy. More thorough investigations of the effect of lineup type on identifications are needed before policy changes are recommended.

An exploration of visual behaviour in eyewitness identification tests

The contribution of internal (eyes, nose and mouth) and external (hair-line, cheek and jaw-line) features across eyewitness identification tests was examined using eye tracking. In Experiment 1, participants studied faces and were tested with lineups, either simultaneous (test faces presented in an array) or sequential (test faces presented one at a time). In Experiment 2, the recognition of previously studied faces was tested in a showup (a suspect face alone was presented). Results indicated that foils were analysed for a shorter period of time in the simultaneous compared to the sequential condition, whereas a positively identified face was analysed for a comparable period of time across lineup procedures. In simultaneous lineups and showups, a greater proportion of time was spent analysing internal features of the test faces compared to sequential lineups. Different decision processes across eyewitness identification tests are inferred based on the results. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Seventy-two tests of the sequential lineup superiority effect: A meta-analysis and policy discussion.

A decade ago, a meta-analysis showed that identification of a suspect from a sequential lineup versus a simultaneous lineup was more diagnostic of guilt (Steblay, Dysart, Fulero, & Lindsay, 2001). Since then, controversy and debate regarding sequential superiority has emerged. We report the results of a new meta-analysis involving 72 tests of simultaneous and sequential lineups from 23 different labs involving 13,143 participant-witnesses. The results are very similar to the 2001 results in showing that the sequential lineup is less likely to result in an identification of the suspect, but also more diagnostic of guilt than is the simultaneous lineup. An examination of the full diagnostic design dataset (27 tests that used the full simultaneous/sequential culprit-present/culprit-absent design) showed that the average gap in correct identifications favoring the simultaneous lineup over the sequential lineup—8%—is smaller than the 15% figure obtained from the 2001 meta-analysis (and from the current full 72-test dataset). The lower error rate incurred for culprit-absent lineups with use of a sequential format remains consistent across the years, with 22% fewer errors than simultaneous lineups. A Bayesian analysis shows that the posterior probability of guilt following an identification of the suspect is higher for the sequential lineup across the entire base rate for culprit presence/absence. New ways to think about policy issues are discussed.

What we know now: The Evanston Illinois field lineups.

A Freedom of Information Act lawsuit secured 100 eyewitness identification reports from Evanston, Illinois, one of three cities of the Illinois Pilot Program. The files provide empirical evidence regarding three methodological aspects of the Program's comparison of non-blind simultaneous to double-blind sequential lineups. (1) A-priori differences existed between lineup conditions. For example, the simultaneous non-blind lineup condition was more likely to involve witnesses who had already identified the suspect in a previous lineup or who knew the offender (non-stranger identifications), and this condition also entailed shorter delays between event and lineup. (2) Verbatim eyewitness comments were recorded more often in double-blind sequential than in non-blind simultaneous lineup reports (83% vs. 39%). (3) Effective lineup structure was used equally in the two lineup conditions.

Sequential lineup laps and eyewitness accuracy.

Police practice of double-blind sequential lineups prompts a question about the efficacy of repeated viewings (laps) of the sequential lineup. Two laboratory experiments confirmed the presence of a sequential lap effect: an increase in witness lineup picks from first to second lap, when the culprit was a stranger. The second lap produced more errors than correct identifications. In Experiment 2, lineup diagnosticity was significantly higher for sequential lineup procedures that employed a single versus double laps. Witnesses who elected to view a second lap made significantly more errors than witnesses who chose to stop after one lap or those who were required to view two laps. Witnesses with prior exposure to the culprit did not exhibit a sequential lap effect.

The not‐sure response option in sequential lineup practice

AbstractField implementation of double‐blind sequential lineups has prompted a question about the impact on eyewitness decisions of an explicit not‐sure response option. In this laboratory study, a video crime was viewed by 378 participants who then attempted to identify the culprit from a six‐person sequential or simultaneous‐format lineup that either included or did not include the culprit. Witnesses were provided either dichotomous forced‐choice (FC) response categories (yes/no) or a not‐sure option as one of three response categories (yes/no/not‐sure). The not‐sure option (NSO) significantly decreased witness choosing compared to the FC condition but only for sequential lineups. Both correct identifications and false alarms decreased. Diagnosticity was greatest for a sequential lineup with a NSO. The results suggest a criterion decision shift for witnesses who view a sequential lineup with a not‐sure response option. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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.

Can the Elimination Lineup Procedure Overcome Lineup Bias: Comparison of Procedures

Sequential and elimination lineup procedures were compared to examine the effect of clothing bias (i.e., innocent suspect is the only lineup member wearing similar clothing to that worn by the criminal at the time of the crime) on correct rejection rates. After witnessing a staged, videotaped theft, participants (N = 67) were presented with a sequential lineup procedure versus an elimination lineup procedure in which the lineup contained clothing bias or not. The elimination lineup procedure produced a significantly higher correct rejection rate than the sequential lineup procedure. The elimination procedure was able to neutralize the negative effect of clothing bias on correct rejection rates.

Exploring the sequential lineup advantage using WITNESS.

Advocates claim that the sequential lineup is an improvement over simultaneous lineup procedures, but no formal (quantitatively specified) explanation exists for why it is better. The computational model WITNESS (Clark, Appl Cogn Psychol 17:629-654, 2003) was used to develop theoretical explanations for the sequential lineup advantage. In its current form, WITNESS produced a sequential advantage only by pairing conservative sequential choosing with liberal simultaneous choosing. However, this combination failed to approximate four extant experiments that exhibited large sequential advantages. Two of these experiments became the focus of our efforts because the data were uncontaminated by likely suspect position effects. Decision-based and memory-based modifications to WITNESS approximated the data and produced a sequential advantage. The next step is to evaluate the proposed explanations and modify public policy recommendations accordingly.

Robustness of the sequential lineup advantage.

A growing movement in the United States and around the world involves promoting the advantages of conducting an eyewitness lineup in a sequential manner. We conducted a large study (N = 2,529) that included 24 comparisons of sequential versus simultaneous lineups. A liberal statistical criterion revealed only 2 significant sequential lineup advantages and 3 significant simultaneous advantages. Both sequential advantages occurred when the good photograph of the guilty suspect or either innocent suspect was in the fifth position in the sequential lineup; all 3 simultaneous advantages occurred when the poorer quality photograph of the guilty suspect or either innocent suspect was in the second position. Adjusting the statistical criterion to control for the multiple tests (.05/24) revealed no significant sequential advantages. Moreover, despite finding more conservative overall choosing for the sequential lineup, no support was found for the proposal that a sequential advantage was due to that conservative criterion shift. Unless lineups with particular characteristics predominate in the real world, there appears to be no strong preference for conducting lineups in either a sequential or a simultaneous manner. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2009 APA, all rights reserved).

Public policy and sequential lineups

The claim that sequential lineups are superior to simultaneous lineups and that our knowledge of sequential lineups is sufficient to warrant their being required by law is reviewed for the validity of both strong and weak claims of sequential superiority, adherence to principles of research design, and the needs of public policy. We conclude, (1) there is little evidence to support the claim that sequential presentation of photos is responsible for lower levels of false identifications, (2) the evidence is weak that the aggregation of factors commonly labeled as the sequential lineup together produce lower levels of false identifications without additional offsetting effects, (3) much of the literature contains several confounds in research design and additional offsetting effects that question its overall utility, (4) recent research shows that the superiority of sequential lineups is restricted to specific ranges on other study design variables, and (5) the corpus of research on sequential lineups does not satisfy the needs of policy sufficiently to justify its mandated use as the required identification procedure throughout the criminal justice system.

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.

Beyond sequential presentation: Misconceptions and misrepresentations of sequential lineups

Malpass, Tredoux, and McQuiston-Surrett (2009), hereinafter ‘MTM’, provide comments on the sequential lineup, research comparing sequential and simultaneous lineups, and the policy implications of this literature. We will comment on points of agreement and disagreement. First, we agree with the following: (1) Peer review, publication of results, and diversity of methods, procedures, and subject populations significantly contribute to the value of research as a basis both for psychological understanding and for recommended policy. (2) Absence of error, omission, and confounds make interpretation and application easier. These conclusions are not revolutionary but seem to occupy a great deal of MTM’s thinking. We disagree with many things that MTM have to say but have room here only to address a few.

Effect on Eyewitness Accuracy When Witnesses Are Told versus Not Told That They Will Be Allowed a Second Viewing

Lindsay, Lea, and Fulford (J Appl Psychol 76:741–745, 1991) found that false identifications increased, correct rejections decreased, and correct identifications minimally increased when witnesses were allowed a second viewing of a sequential lineup. We conducted a similar study in which we allowed mock witnesses a second viewing of a sequential lineup. Results indicated that participants who were allowed a second viewing made mostly incorrect identifications. Participants correctly identified the perpetrator more often when they were not told in advance that they would have a second viewing than when they were told. Additionally, those participants who were told that they would be allowed a second viewing incorrectly rejected the lineup more often than those who were not told. The findings yielded conclusions similar to those of Lindsay et al. (J Appl Psychol 76:741–745, 1991) suggesting that witnesses should not be allowed to view the lineup a second time. The results also suggest that, if a repeated lineup is used, witnesses should not be informed of that in advance.

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.

What US prosecutors and defence attorneys know and believe about eyewitness testimony

AbstractThe present study compared what prosecutors and defence attorneys know about eyewitness testimony, what they believe jurors know about eyewitness testimony, and what legal safeguards they think are necessary to educate jurors about eyewitness factors. A total of 73 prosecutors and 1184 defence attorneys completed a survey about eyewitness testimony. Both groups of attorneys had extensive experience practicing law and trying criminal cases. Prosecutors were significantly less knowledgeable than the defence attorneys on almost every issue including the weak relationship between eyewitness confidence and accuracy at trial, jurors' inability to distinguish between accurate and inaccurate eyewitnesses and the benefits of sequential lineups. The prosecutors were less willing than the defence attorneys to permit eyewitness expert testimony and were less sceptical of jurors' knowledge of eyewitness testimony. We highlight issues from the survey that are relevant to the training of prosecutors and defence attorneys about eyewitness testimony. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Can a Lineup Procedure Designed for Child Witnesses Work for Adults? Comparing Simultaneous, Sequential, and Elimination Lineup Procedures

A study (N = 165) was conducted to examine whether the elimination lineup, an identification procedure developed for children to reduce their false‐positive responding, was effective for adult witnesses. Although the sequential lineup is available to help reduce adults’ false‐positive identifications, having different procedures for child and adult witnesses poses difficulty for the police and justice system. One procedure for all witnesses would be ideal. Simultaneous, sequential, and elimination procedures were compared. The elimination procedure produced a comparable correct rejection rate to the sequential procedure. Both the elimination and sequential procedure produced a higher correct rejection rate than did the simultaneous procedure. Correct identification rates were comparable across the 3 lineup procedures.

Lineup composition, suspect position, and the sequential lineup advantage.

N. M. Steblay, J. Dysart, S. Fulero, and R. C. L. Lindsay (2001) argued that sequential lineups reduce the likelihood of mistaken eyewitness identification. Experiment 1 replicated the design of R. C. L. Lindsay and G. L. Wells (1985), the first study to show the sequential lineup advantage. However, the innocent suspect was chosen at a lower rate in the simultaneous lineup, and no sequential lineup advantage was found. This led the authors to hypothesize that protection from a sequential lineup might emerge only when an innocent suspect stands out from the other lineup members. In Experiment 2, participants viewed a simultaneous or sequential lineup with either the guilty suspect or 1 of 3 innocent suspects. Lineup fairness was varied to influence the degree to which a suspect stood out. A sequential lineup advantage was found only for the unfair lineups. Additional analyses of suspect position in the sequential lineups showed an increase in the diagnosticity of suspect identifications as the suspect was placed later in the sequential lineup. These results suggest that the sequential lineup advantage is dependent on lineup composition and suspect position.

Regularities in eyewitness identification.

What do eyewitness identification experiments typically show? We address this question through a meta-analysis of 94 comparisons between target-present and target-absent lineups. The analyses showed that: (a) correct identifications and correct-nonidentifications were uncorrelated, (b) suspect identifications were more diagnostic with respect to the suspect's guilt or innocence than any other response, (c) nonidentifications were diagnostic of the suspect's innocence, (d) the diagnosticity of foil identifications depended on lineup composition, and (e) don't know responses were nondiagnostic with respect to guilt or innocence. Results of diagnosticity analyses for simultaneous and sequential lineups varied for full-sample versus direct-comparison analyses. Diagnosticity patterns also varied as a function of lineup composition. Theoretical, forensic, and legal implications are discussed.