US Lineups Outperform UK Lineups

In the US and the UK, many thousands of police suspects are identified by eyewitnesses every year. Unfortunately, many of those suspects are innocent, which becomes evident when they are exonerated by DNA testing, often after having been imprisoned for years [1]. It is therefore imperative to use identification procedures that best enable eyewitnesses to discriminate innocent from guilty suspects. Although police investigators in both countries often administer lineup procedures, the details of how lineups are presented are quite different and an important direct comparison has yet to be conducted. We investigated whether these two lineup procedures differ in terms of 1) discriminability (using receiver operating characteristic analysis) and 2) reliability (using confidence-accuracy characteristic analysis). A total of 2249 participants watched a video of a crime and were later tested using either a 6person simultaneous photo lineup procedure (US) or a 9-person sequential video lineup procedure (UK). US lineup procedure yielded significantly higher discriminability and significantly higher reliability. The results do not pinpoint the reason for the observed difference between the two procedures, but they do suggest that there is much room for improvement with the UK lineup.

[1]  Gary L. Wells,et al.  Improving eyewitness identifications from lineups: Simultaneous versus sequential lineup presentation. , 1985 .

[2]  M. Zweig,et al.  Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) plots: a fundamental evaluation tool in clinical medicine. , 1993, Clinical chemistry.

[3]  Anders Winman,et al.  Calibration and diagnosticity of confidence in eyewitness identification: Comments on what can be inferred from the low confidence-accuracy correlation , 1996 .

[4]  S. L. Davey,et al.  Eyewitness Identification in Actual Criminal Cases: An Archival Analysis , 2001, Law and human behavior.

[5]  Nancy K. Steblay,et al.  Eyewitness Accuracy Rates in Sequential and Simultaneous Lineup Presentations: A Meta-Analytic Comparison , 2001, Law and human behavior.

[6]  Neil Brewer,et al.  The confidence-accuracy relationship in eyewitness identification: effects of lineup instructions, foil similarity, and target-absent base rates. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[7]  Xavier Robin,et al.  pROC: an open-source package for R and S+ to analyze and compare ROC curves , 2011, BMC Bioinformatics.

[8]  N. Brewer,et al.  The Effect of Retention Interval on the Confidence–Accuracy Relationship for Eyewitness Identification , 2010, Law and human behavior.

[9]  Nancy K. Steblay,et al.  Seventy-two tests of the sequential lineup superiority effect: A meta-analysis and policy discussion. , 2011 .

[10]  Scott D. Gronlund,et al.  Showups versus lineups: An evaluation using ROC analysis , 2012 .

[11]  Matthew A. Palmer,et al.  Backloading in the sequential lineup prevents within-lineup criterion shifts that undermine eyewitness identification performance. , 2012, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[12]  J. Wixted,et al.  The Field of Eyewitness Memory Should Abandon Probative Value and Embrace Receiver Operating Characteristic Analysis , 2012, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[13]  John T Wixted,et al.  Receiver operating characteristic analysis of eyewitness memory: comparing the diagnostic accuracy of simultaneous versus sequential lineups. , 2012, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[14]  David G. Dobolyi,et al.  Eyewitness confidence in simultaneous and sequential lineups: a criterion shift account for sequential mistaken identification overconfidence. , 2013, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[15]  Neil Brewer,et al.  The confidence-accuracy relationship for eyewitness identification decisions: Effects of exposure duration, retention interval, and divided attention. , 2013, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[16]  J. Wixted,et al.  Missing the information needed to perform ROC analysis? Then compute d , not the diagnosticity ratio , 2014 .

[17]  Scott D. Gronlund,et al.  Evaluating Eyewitness Identification Procedures Using Receiver Operating Characteristic Analysis , 2014 .

[18]  John T Wixted,et al.  A signal-detection-based diagnostic-feature-detection model of eyewitness identification. , 2014, Psychological review.

[19]  Laura Mickes,et al.  Receiver operating characteristic analysis and confidence–accuracy characteristic analysis in investigations of system variables and estimator variables that affect eyewitness memory , 2015 .

[20]  J. Wixted,et al.  Evaluating eyewitness identification procedures: ROC analysis and its misconceptions , 2015 .

[21]  William Wells,et al.  Estimating the reliability of eyewitness identifications from police lineups , 2015, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[22]  J. Wixted,et al.  ROC analysis measures objective discriminability for any eyewitness identification procedure , 2015 .

[23]  J. Wixted,et al.  Initial eyewitness confidence reliably predicts eyewitness identification accuracy. , 2015, The American psychologist.

[24]  Andrew M. Smith,et al.  ROC analysis of lineups does not measure underlying discriminability and has limited value , 2015 .

[25]  James Michael Lampinen,et al.  ROC analyses in eyewitness identification research , 2016 .