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.

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

[2]  F. Craik,et al.  The effects of divided attention on encoding and retrieval processes in human memory. , 1996, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

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

[4]  M. Humphreys,et al.  Relational information and the context effect in recognition memory , 1976, Memory & cognition.

[5]  G. Wells.  Applied eyewitness-testimony research: System variables and estimator variables. , 1978 .

[6]  A. Yonelinas.  The Nature of Recollection and Familiarity: A Review of 30 Years of Research , 2002 .

[7]  R. Malpass.  Effective size and defendant bias in eyewitness identification lineups , 1981 .

[8]  Steve D. Charman,et al.  Can eyewitnesses correct for external influences on their lineup identifications? The actual/counterfactual assessment paradigm. , 2008, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[9]  R. Malpass,et al.  Eyewitness Identification Procedures: Recommendations for Lineups and Photospreads , 1998 .

[10]  Roy S. Malpass,et al.  Eyewitness identification: Lineup instructions and the absence of the offender. , 1981 .

[11]  C. Tredoux.  Statistical Inference on Measures of Lineup Fairness , 1998 .

[12]  Tim Valentine,et al.  An evaluation of the fairness of police line‐ups and video identifications , 1999 .

[13]  G. Mandler.  Recognizing: The judgment of previous occurrence. , 1980 .

[14]  Roy S. Malpass,et al.  A NATIONAL SURVEY OF US POLICE ON PREPARATION AND CONDUCT OF IDENTIFICATION LINEUPS , 2004 .

[15]  R. Lindsay,et al.  Biased lineups: sequential presentation reduces the problem. , 1991, The Journal of applied psychology.

[16]  Steven E. Clark,et al.  A memory and decision model for eyewitness identification , 2003 .

[17]  P. Lachenbruch.  Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.) , 1989 .

[18]  S. Clark,et al.  The Target-to-Foils Shift in Simultaneous and Sequential Lineups , 2005, Law and human behavior.

[19]  Gwenn W. Gröndal,et al.  Meta-analytic procedures for social research , 1993 .

[20]  R. Malpass,et al.  EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATION , 2005 .

[21]  Gary L. Wells,et al.  Stimulus Sampling and Social Psychological Experimentation , 1999 .

[22]  A. Levi.  Protecting innocent defendants, nailing the guilty: a modified sequential lineup , 1998 .

[23]  Ryan T. Howell,et al.  Regularities in Eyewitness Identification , 2008, Law and human behavior.

[24]  L. Jacoby.  A process dissociation framework: Separating automatic from intentional uses of memory , 1991 .

[25]  R. Fisher,et al.  Effects of administrator-witness contact on eyewitness identification accuracy. , 2004, The Journal of applied psychology.

[26]  S. Clark,et al.  Selecting Lineup Foils in Eyewitness Identification Experiments: Experimental Control and Real-World Simulation , 2001, Law and human behavior.

[27]  R. Malpass,et al.  Sequential vs. Simultaneous Lineups: A Review of Methods, Data, and Theory. , 2006 .

[28]  G. Wells.  The Psychology of Lineup Identifications1 , 1984 .

[29]  J. Read,et al.  Adult Eyewitness Testimony: Current Trends and Developments , 2007 .

[30]  Measuring lineup fairness , 1999 .

[31]  Hugo Münsterberg,et al.  On the Witness Stand; Essays on Psychology and Crime , 2007 .

[32]  S. Clark.  A Re-examination of the Effects of Biased Lineup Instructions in Eyewitness Identification , 2005, Law and human behavior.

[33]  Scott D. Gronlund,et al.  Sequential lineup advantage: contributions of distinctiveness and recollection , 2005 .

[34]  Recommendations for properly conducted lineup identification tasks , 1994 .

[35]  F. Gabbert,et al.  Unravelling the effects of sequential presentation in culprit present lineups , 2003 .

[36]  Otto H MacLin,et al.  Eyewitness decisions in simultaneous and sequential lineups: A dual-process signal detection theory analysis , 2005, Memory & cognition.

[37]  R. Lindsay,et al.  On Estimating the Diagnosticity of Eyewitness Nonidentifications , 1980 .

[38]  Margaret Bull Kovera,et al.  Double-blind photoarray administration as a safeguard against investigator bias. , 1999 .

[39]  S. L. Sporer,et al.  Eyewitness identification accuracy, confidence, and decision times in simultaneous and sequential lineups , 1993 .