Simultaneous and sequential lineups: Decision processes of accurate and inaccurate eyewitnesses.
TL;DR: In this article, the cognitive processes and decision-making strategies of eyewitnesses were tested for their predictive qualities in determining the accuracy of identifications from lineups, and the sequential presentation resulted in an equivalent number of correct identifications compared to the simultaneous lineup but reduced false identification rates.
Abstract: The cognitive processes and decision-making strategies of eyewitnesses were tested for their predictive qualities in determining the accuracy of identifications from lineups. The sequential lineup presentation was compared with the traditionally employed simultaneous lineup under culprit (target) present and culprit absent conditions. Consistent with previous research the sequential presentation resulted in an equivalent number of correct identifications compared to the simultaneous lineup but reduced false identification rates. Although sequential lineups were found to be associated with the use of absolute strategies, those shown a simultaneous lineup reported the use of both relative and absolute strategies. Accurate identifications and rejections were found to be associated with the use of absolute strategies, irrespective of lineup presentation or presence of target. Also accurate identifications, at least with a sequential lineup, were generally made faster than inaccurate identifications. These results are compared to previous studies with respect to the effect that mode of processing (relative versus absolute judgements) has on a witness's decision making and identification accuracy.
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: 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.
Abstract: 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.
266 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors 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, 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.
Abstract: 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.
199 citations
TL;DR: Sequential (cf. simultaneous) presentation did not influence discriminability, but produced a conservative shift in response bias that resulted in less-biased choosing for sequential than simultaneous lineups, which inform understanding of the effects of lineup presentation mode on eyewitness identification decisions.
Abstract: When compared with simultaneous lineup presentation, sequential presentation has been shown to reduce false identifications to a greater extent than it reduces correct identifications. However, there has been much debate about whether this difference in identification performance represents improved discriminability or more conservative responding. In this research, data from 22 experiments that compared sequential and simultaneous lineups were analyzed using a compound signal-detection model, which is specifically designed to describe decision-making performance on tasks such as eyewitness identification tests. Sequential (cf. simultaneous) presentation did not influence discriminability, but produced a conservative shift in response bias that resulted in less-biased choosing for sequential than simultaneous lineups. These results inform understanding of the effects of lineup presentation mode on eyewitness identification decisions.
92 citations
Additional excerpts
...….64 0.05 1.40 1.05 Greathouse & Kovera (2009) Simultaneous .60 .28 .90 .60 .34 .83 6.53 1.57 1.74 Sequential .60 .33 .83 .60 .34 .82 0.16 1.59 1.70 Kneller et al. (2001) Simultaneous .61 .17 .61 .62 .20 .56 0.61 1.98 1.13 Sequential .50 .11 .22 .49 .10 .24 0.07 2.32 0.45 Levi (2006) Simultaneous…...
[...]
TL;DR: A considerable amount of empirical research has been conducted on ways to improve the eyewitness identification process, with emphasis on the use of lineups as discussed by the authors, and public policy changes are currently underway with respect to lineup procedures: sequential lineups are being recommended to police as the best practice.
Abstract: A considerable amount of empirical research has been conducted on ways to improve the eyewitness identification process, with emphasis on the use of lineups. Public policy changes are currently underway with respect to lineup procedures: Sequential lineups are being recommended to police as the best practice. This may be premature because the conditions under which sequential lineups are superior to simultaneous lineups are not well understood given the current literature: Many studies are reported with insufficient detail needed to judge the adequacy of the research design, new data show that the sequential superiority effect may vary as a function of study methodology, theoretical assumptions have not been adequately tested, and important comparisons that may rule out the ostensible superiority of the sequential lineup have not been studied. This review summarizes the literature, presents new data, and identifies the need for further empirical work before appropriately grounded recommendations as to the superiority of sequential lineups can be made.
91 citations
Cites background or result from "Simultaneous and sequential lineups..."
...…each other to narrow the choices (indicating a relative judgment) or compared each photograph separately to their memory image (indicating an absolute judgment; for examples of this, see Dysart & Lindsay, 2001; Kneller et al., 2001; Lindsay & Bellinger, 1999; Lindsay, Lea, Nosworthy, et al., 1991)....
[...]
...…perpetrator without substantially reducing the rate of correct identifications from lineups that do contain the perpetrator (Cutler & Penrod, 1988; Kneller et al., 2001; Lindsay & Bellinger, 1999; Lindsay, Lea, Nosworthy, et al., 1991; Lindsay & Wells, 1985; Melara, DeWitt-Rickards, & O’Brien,…...
[...]
...It has also been suggested that real witnesses be instructed to use absolute judgments when making an identification from a lineup (Kneller et al., 2001)....
[...]
...Kneller et al. (2001) reported similar findings but also noted that decision times were not correlated with participants’ self-reported use of absolute or relative judgment strategies....
[...]
...Researchers have argued in the years since Lindsay and Wells’s (1985) original study of relative and absolute judgments that it is this difference that accounts for the SEQL advantage (Dysart & Lindsay, 2001; Kneller et al., 2001; Lindsay & Bellinger, 1999; Lindsay, Lea, Nosworthy, et al., 1991)....
[...]
References
More filters
TL;DR: In this paper, it was shown that people are sometimes unaware of the existence of a stimulus that influenced a response, unaware of its existence, and unaware that the stimulus has affected the response.
Abstract: Evidence is reviewed which suggests that there may be little or no direct introspective access to higher order cognitive processes. Subjects are sometimes (a) unaware of the existence of a stimulus that importantly influenced a response, (b) unaware of the existence of the response, and (c) unaware that the stimulus has affected the response. It is proposed that when people attempt to report on their cognitive processes, that is, on the processes mediating the effects of a stimulus on a response, they do not do so on the basis of any true introspection. Instead, their reports are based on a priori, implicit causal theories, or judgments about the extent to which a particular stimulus is a plausible cause of a given response. This suggests that though people may not be able to observe directly their cognitive processes, they will sometimes be able to report accurately about them. Accurate reports will occur when influential stimuli are salient and are plausible causes of the responses they produce, and will not occur when stimuli are not salient or are not plausible causes.
10,186 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, three important themes from the scientific literature relevant to lineup methods were identified and reviewed, namely relative-judgment processes, the lineups-as-experiments analogy, and confidence malleability.
Abstract: There is increasing evidence that false eyewitness identification is the primary cause of the conviction of innocent people. In 1996, the American Psychology/Law Society and Division 41 of the American Psychological Association appointed a subcommittee to review scientific evidence and make recommendations regarding the best procedures for constructing and conducting lineups and photospreads. Three important themes from the scientific literature relevant to lineup methods were identified and reviewed, namely relative-judgment processes, the lineups-as-experiments analogy, and confidence malleability. Recommendations are made that double-blind lineup testing should be used, that eyewitnesses should be forewarned that the culprit might not be present, that distractors should be selected based on the eyewitness's verbal description of the perpetrator, and that confidence should be assessed and recorded at the time of identification. The potential costs and benefits of these recommendations are discussed.
705 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, a crime was staged for 240 unsuspecting eyewitnesses either individually or in pairs, and one quarter of the eyewitnesses attempted identifications in each of four lineup conditions: six pictures were presented either simultaneously, as used in traditional procedures, or sequentially, in which yes/no judgments were made for each picture; each procedure either contained the photograph of the criminal-confederate or a picture of a similar looking replacement.
Abstract: Staged crime research has demonstrated the utility of controlling the conduct of lineups as a means of reducing false identifications with little or no apparent decline in the rate of correct identifications by eyewitnesses (e.g., Lindsay & Wells, 1980; Malpass & Devine, 1981a; Wells, 1984). A recent variation in lineup procedure shows that a blank lineup, which includes no suspects, can reduce the rate of false identifications if it precedes the actual lineup. However, there are several practical problems that make it unlikely that police will accept this procedure. Sequential lineup presentation is proposed as a means of accomplishing the same goals of reducing false identifications with little or no loss in accurate identifications. A crime was staged for 240 unsuspecting eyewitnesses either individually or in pairs. One quarter of the eyewitnesses attempted identifications in each of four lineup conditions: Six pictures were presented either simultaneously, as used in traditional procedures, or sequentially, in which yes/no judgments were made for each picture; each procedure either contained the photograph of the criminal-confederate or a picture of a similar looking replacement. Sequential lineup presentation significantly reduced false identifications but did not significantly influence correct identifications when compared with the simultaneous procedure. This resulted in an overall increase in diagnosticity ratio (Wells & Lindsay, 1980) using the sequential procedure. The data are interpreted as supporting the conclusion that sequential presentation of lineups can reduce false identifications of innocent suspects by reducing eyewitnesses' reliance on relativejudgment processes.
529 citations
306 citations