Eyewitness Accuracy Rates in Sequential and Simultaneous Lineup Presentations: A Meta-Analytic Comparison

Most police lineups use a simultaneous presentation technique in which eyewitnesses view all lineup members at the same time. Lindsay and Wells (R. C. L. Lindsay & G. L. Wells, 1985) devised an alternative procedure, the sequential lineup, in which witnesses view one lineup member at a time and decide whether or not that person is the perpetrator prior to viewing the next lineup member. The present work uses the technique of meta-analysis to compare the accuracy rates of these presentation styles. Twenty-three papers were located (9 published and 14 unpublished), providing 30 tests of the hypothesis and including 4,145 participants. Results showed that identification of perpetrators from target-present lineups occurs at a higher rate from simultaneous than from sequential lineups. However, this difference largely disappears when moderator variables approximating real world conditions are considered. Also, correct rejection rates were significantly higher for sequential than simultaneous lineups and this difference is maintained or increased by greater approximation to real world conditions. Implications of these findings are discussed.

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

[2]  Elizabeth F. Loftus,et al.  Warning: Even memory for faces may be contagious , 1980 .

[3]  B. Clifford,et al.  Effects of the Type of Incident and the Number of Perpetrators on Eyewitness Memory , 1981 .

[4]  R. Rosenthal.  Meta-analytic procedures for social research , 1984 .

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

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

[7]  S. Penrod,et al.  Improving the reliability of eyewitness identification: Lineup construction and presentation. , 1988 .

[8]  R. Melara,et al.  Enhancing lineup identification accuracy: two codes are better than one. , 1989, The Journal of applied psychology.

[9]  R. Lindsay,et al.  Sequential lineup presentation : technique matters , 1991 .

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

[11]  N. Steblay.  A meta-analytic review of the weapon focus effect , 1992 .

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

[13]  J. Parker,et al.  An attempt to reduce guessing behavior in children's and adults' eyewitness identifications , 1993 .

[14]  Rod C. L. Lindsay,et al.  A Problem for the Match-to-Description Lineup Foil Selection Strategy , 1994 .

[15]  The effects of pretrial publicity on jurors. , 1994 .

[16]  R. Lindsay,et al.  Increasing correct identifications by children , 1997 .

[17]  R. Lindsay,et al.  Simultaneous Lineups, Sequential Lineups, and Showups: Eyewitness Identification Decisions of Adults and Children , 1997 .

[18]  N. Steblay,et al.  Social Influence in Eyewitness Recall: A Meta-Analytic Review of Lineup Instruction Effects , 1997 .

[19]  S. Fulero,et al.  The Effects of Pretrial Publicity on Juror Verdicts: A Meta-Analytic Review , 1999 .

[20]  Rod C. L. Lindsay,et al.  Alternatives to the sequential lineup: the importance of controlling the pictures. , 1999, The Journal of applied psychology.

[21]  R. Lindsay,et al.  Elimination lineups : An improved identification procedure for child eyewitnesses , 1999 .

[22]  A. Memon,et al.  On the "general acceptance" of eyewitness testimony research. A new survey of the experts. , 2001, The American psychologist.

[23]  J. Brigham,et al.  A meta-analysis of the verbal overshadowing effect in face identification , 2001 .

[24]  S. Stevenage,et al.  Simultaneous and sequential lineups: Decision processes of accurate and inaccurate eyewitnesses. , 2001 .