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.     

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.     

The Effect of Backloading Instructions on Eyewitness Identification from Simultaneous and Sequential Lineups

The sequential lineup is multifaceted, including serial presentation of faces, multiple decisions, and often backloading (indicating to an eyewitness that a lineup contains more photos than there actually are). We evaluated the effect of backloading instructions on response bias and sensitivity with an eyewitness identification paradigm. Importantly, we included an ‘undisclosed’ condition that provided no information to participants about the number of lineup members to expect. Experiment 1 (N = 780) tested sequential lineups; Experiment 2 (N = 532) tested simultaneous lineups. As predicted, signal detection analysis showed that backloading induced participants to be more conservative in choosing from both lineup types, but did not affect d′. We conclude that the criminal justice system should be mindful of this shift in response bias, as it has implications for both guilty and innocent suspect identifications. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Enhancing lineup identification accuracy: two codes are better than one

Ways of improving identification accuracy were explored by comparing the conventional visual lineup with an auditory/visual lineup, one that paired color photographs with voice recordings. This bimodal lineup necessitated sequential presentation of lineup members; Experiment 1 showed that performance in sequential lineups was better than performance in traditional simultaneous lineups. In Experiments 2A and 2B unimodal and bimodal lineups were compared by using a multiple-lineup paradigm: Ss viewed 3 videotaped episodes depicting standard police procedures and were tested in 4 sequential lineups. Bimodal lineups were more diagnostic than either visual or auditory lineups alone. The bimodal lineup led to a 126% improvement in number of correct identifications over the conventional visual lineup, with no concomitant increase in number of false identifications. These results imply strongly that bimodal procedures should be adopted in real-world lineups. The nature of memorial processes underlying this bimodal advantage is discussed.     

Alternatives to the sequential lineup: the importance of controlling the pictures.

Because sequential lineups reduce false-positive choices, their use has been recommended (R. C. L. Lindsay, 1999; R. C. L. Lindsay & G. L. Wells, 1985). Blind testing is included in the recommended procedures. Police, concerned about blind testing, devised alternative procedures, including self-administered sequential lineups, to reduce use of relative judgments (G. L. Wells, 1984) while permitting the investigating officer to conduct the procedure. Identification data from undergraduates exposed to a staged crime (N = 165) demonstrated that 4 alternative identification procedures tested were less effective than the original sequential lineup. Allowing witnesses to control the photographs resulted in higher rates of false-positive identification. Self-reports of using relative judgments were shown to be postdictive of decision accuracy.     

Protecting innocent defendants,nailing the guilty: a modified sequential lineup

Can the traditional lineup procedure be modified in such a way as to still secure positive identifications of guilty persons while minimizing the risk of misidentifications? Witnesses interacted with a ‘culprit’ who they were later called upon to identify from a 20-person sequential video lineup. Both culprit-present and culprit-absent lineups were employed and witnesses could choose more than one suspect. In 61 culprit-present lineups 43% chose only the suspect, while in 93 culprit-absent lineups no-one did. In culprit-present lineups 25% chose him along with foils, while 5% did so in culprit-absent lineups. Larger lineup size, and the ability to make multiple choices, helped lower the probability of choosing only an innocent suspect. Using Baysian analysis, the probability that a chosen defendant was innocent, based on the lineup alone, equalled 0.03, compared to 0.258 in traditional lineups. © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Double Exposure: The Effects of Repeated Identification Lineups on Eyewitness Accuracy

Eyewitnesses may be asked to identify the same suspect from a lineup on successive occasions. This study explored the effects on eyewitness decisions of repeated same‐suspect lineups, within a 2 × 2 × 2 mixed‐model factorial design. Witnesses to a video crime attempted to identify the culprit from two same‐format lineups (simultaneous or sequential) separated by a 2‐week retention interval (Lineup1, Lineup2) in which a suspect (guilty or innocent) was common to the lineups. We predicted two components of a posited repeated lineup effect: that positive identification errors made at the first lineup would be carried forward rather than corrected at the second lineup and that the number of false identifications of the innocent suspect would rise from first to second lineup. Predictions were supported, with a stronger negative impact of repeated lineups for simultaneous than sequential lineups. Additionally, witnesses who made selections of the guilty suspect and of the innocent suspect at Lineup2 were equally confident and were significantly more confident than witnesses who declined to pick. The results underscore concerns about possible negative outcomes from repeated lineups. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

An evaluation of lineup presentation,weapon presence,and a distinctive feature using ROC analysis

We conducted an experiment (N = 2675) including both laboratory and online participants to test hypotheses regarding important system and estimator variables for eyewitness identification. Simultaneous lineups were compared to sequential lineups with the suspect presented early versus late because there is evidence that suspect position could be an important factor determining a simultaneous versus sequential advantage in guilty-innocent suspect discriminability. We also manipulated whether or not the perpetrator held a weapon or had a distinctive feature on his face, to re-evaluate recent evidence that these factors interact. Overall, the simultaneous lineup yielded higher discriminability than the sequential lineup, and there was no effect of sequential position. Discriminability was higher when the perpetrator had no weapon, but only when no distinctive feature was present. We conclude with a discussion of the importance of exploring interactions between system and estimator variables using Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analysis.     

Showups versus lineups: An evaluation using ROC analysis

Showups (a one-person identification) were compared to both simultaneous and sequential lineups that varied in lineup fairness and the position of the suspect in the lineup. We reanalyzed data from a study by Gronlund, Carlson, Dailey, and Goodsell (2009), which included simultaneous and sequential lineups, and using the same stimuli and procedures, collected new data using showup identifications. Performance was compared using ROC analysis, which is superior to traditional measures such as correct and false identification rates, and probative value measures. ROC analysis showed that simultaneous lineups consistently produced more accurate identification evidence than showups, but sequential lineups were sometimes no more accurate than showups, and were never more accurate than simultaneous lineups. These results supported prior suppositions regarding the suggestiveness of showups, revealed a misconception about the superiority of sequential lineups, and demonstrated why eyewitness identification procedures need to be evaluated using ROC analyses.     

Eyewitness identification in simultaneous and sequential lineups: an investigation of position effects using receiver operating characteristics

For decades, sequential lineups have been considered superior to simultaneous lineups in the context of eyewitness identification. However, most of the research leading to this conclusion was based on the analysis of diagnosticity ratios that do not control for the respondent’s response criterion. Recent research based on the analysis of ROC curves has found either equal discriminability for sequential and simultaneous lineups, or higher discriminability for simultaneous lineups. Some evidence for potential position effects and for criterion shifts in sequential lineups has also been reported. Using ROC curve analysis, we investigated the effects of the suspect’s position on discriminability and response criteria in both simultaneous and sequential lineups. We found that sequential lineups suffered from an unwanted position effect. Respondents employed a strict criterion for the earliest lineup positions, and shifted to a more liberal criterion for later positions. No position effects and no criterion shifts were observed in simultaneous lineups. This result suggests that sequential lineups are not superior to simultaneous lineups, and may give rise to unwanted position effects that have to be considered when conducting police lineups.     

Mug shot exposure prior to lineup identification: interference, transference, and commitment effects.

The effects of viewing mug shots on subsequent identification performance are as yet unclear. Two experiments used a live staged-crime paradigm to determine if interpolated eyewitness exposure to mug shots caused interference, unconscious transference, or commitment effects influencing subsequent lineup accuracy. Experiment 1 (N = 104) tested interference effects. Similar correct decision rates were obtained for the mug shot and no mug shot groups from both perpetrator-present and absent lineups. Experiment 2 (N = 132) tested for commitment and transference effects. Results showed that the commitment group made significantly more incorrect identifications than either the control or the transference group, which had similar false-identification rates. Commitment effects present a serious threat to identification accuracy from lineups following mug shot searches.     

Building face composites can harm lineup identification performance

Face composite programs permit eyewitnesses to build likenesses of target faces by selecting facial features and combining them into an intact face. Research has shown that these composites are generally poor likenesses of the target face. Two experiments tested the proposition that this composite-building process could harm the builder's memory for the face. In Experiment 1 (n = 150), the authors used 50 different faces and found that the building of a composite reduced the chances that the person could later identify the original face from a lineup when compared with no composite control conditions or with yoked composite-exposure control conditions. In Experiment 2 (n = 200), the authors found that this effect generalized to a simulated-crime video, but mistaken identifications from target-absent lineups were not inflated by composite building.     

Lineup Member Similarity Effects on Children's Eyewitness Identification

To date, research investigating the similarity among lineup members has focused on adult eyewitnesses. In the present research, children made identifications from lineups containing members of lower or higher similarity to a target person. In Experiment 1, following a live interaction, children's (6–14 years) correct identification rate was reduced in higher‐similarity relative to lower‐similarity lineups. In Experiment 2, children (6–12 years) and adults watched a video containing a target person. Again, higher‐similarity lineup members reduced children's correct identifications; however, similarity had no effect on adults' correct identification rate. Although children benefited from lower‐similarity lineups when the target was present, lower‐similarity lineups generally increased misidentifications of an innocent suspect when the target was absent. Thus, increasing similarity in lineups for children had a cost on target‐present lineups and a benefit on target‐absent lineups. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Children's metacognitive judgments in an eyewitness identification task

Two experiments examined children's metacognitive monitoring of recognition judgments within an eyewitness identification paradigm. A confidence-accuracy (CA) calibration approach was used to examine patterns of calibration, over-/underconfidence, and resolution. In Experiment 1, children (n=619, mean age=11 years 10 months) and adults (n=600) viewed a simulated crime and attempted two separate identifications from 8-person target-present or target-absent lineups given lineup instructions that manipulated witnesses choosing patterns by varying the degree of social pressure. For choosers, but not nonchoosers, meaningful CA relations were observed for adults but not for children. Experiment 2 tested a guided hypothesis disconfirmation manipulation designed to improve the realism of children's metacognitive judgments. Children (N=796, mean age=11 years 11 months) in experimental and control conditions viewed a crime and attempted two separate identifications. The manipulation had minimal impact on the CA relation for choosers and nonchoosers. In contrast to adults, children's identification confidence provides no useful guide for investigators about the likely guilt or innocence of a suspect. These experiments revealed limitations in children's metacognitive monitoring processes that have not been apparent in previous research on recall and recognition with younger children.     

Configural and component processing in simultaneous and sequential lineup procedures

Configural processing supports accurate face recognition, yet it has never been examined within the context of criminal identification lineups. We tested, using the inversion paradigm, the role of configural processing in lineups. Recent research has found that face discrimination accuracy in lineups is better in a simultaneous compared to a sequential lineup procedure. Therefore, we compared configural processing in simultaneous and sequential lineups to examine whether there are differences. We had participants view a crime video, and then they attempted to identify the perpetrator from a simultaneous or sequential lineup. The test faces were presented either upright or inverted, as previous research has shown that inverting test faces disrupts configural processing. The size of the inversion effect for faces was the same across lineup procedures, indicating that configural processing underlies face recognition in both procedures. Discrimination accuracy was comparable across lineup procedures in both the upright and inversion condition. Theoretical implications of the results are discussed.     

Searching for the sequential line-up advantage: a distinctiveness explanation

Gronlund ( 2005 ) proposed that one factor leading to a sequential line-up advantage could be the greater likelihood of recollecting distinctive information about a perpetrator when using a sequential line-up. Since then questions have been raised about the robustness of the sequential advantage and the possible moderating role of line-up fairness and suspect position. We manipulated these factors as well as suspect/target distinctiveness in two experiments. A sequential advantage occurred only after encoding a distinctive target, both for biased line-ups (Experiment 1) and fair line-ups (Experiment 2). Remember-Know results were consistent with the greater use of a recall-to-reject strategy in target-absent sequential line-ups. This provided support for the first process-based explanation of the sequential line-up advantage. No consistent position effects were found, but this might be due to the line-up recognition paradigm used, in which each participant viewed a line-up for each of several targets. Theory-based explorations of eyewitness identification are necessary to continue to delineate the underpinnings of the sequential line-up advantage.