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.     

Simultaneous and sequential lineups: decision processes of accurate and inaccurate eyewitnesses

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. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

A comparison of presentation methods of video identification parades

Researchers have demonstrated that sequential lineup presentation reduces false identifications from perpetrator absent lineups. In England and Wales police identification parades are shown on video in a sequential manner. However, police sequential presentation varies from the strict sequential presentation advocated by researchers. In addition, after police have shown the sequential presentation they also have the option to show witnesses a matrix of the parade where witnesses can see all members of the parade simultaneously. The research reported investigated the effect of strict sequential presentation, police sequential presentation and police sequential presentation plus matrix on mock witnesses' performance on perpetrator present and absent video identification parades. Strict sequential presentation led to fewer correct identifications of the perpetrator than police sequential and police sequential plus matrix, with no difference in performance between either of the police conditions. For perpetrator absent lineups there was no effect of lineup presentation condition on lineup performance. Copyright © 2010 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.     

Novel lineup methods for improving the performance of older eyewitnesses

Previous research shows that older witnesses demonstrate poorer lineup performance compared to younger adults. Two experiments are presented which investigated the effectiveness of pre‐identification procedures aimed to reduce false identifications made by older adults. In experiment one older adults' demonstrated poorer lineup performance compared to younger adults. However, older adults benefited from pre‐lineup questions and a practice lineup prior to viewing a target absent (TA) lineup. In a second experiment, participants in the practice lineup condition made significantly fewer false identifications and more correct rejections on two TA lineups compared to participants in the control condition. On both target present (TP) lineups there was no significant difference in lineup performance between the two conditions. The effect of pre‐identification procedure on self‐reported lineup decision strategy and memory for non‐biased lineup instructions are discussed, as well as future research directions. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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.     

Children's identification of faces from lineups: the effects of lineup presentation and instructions on accuracy

The authors investigated whether the type of lineup and instructions given to children 6-7 or 9-10 years of age affected their identification accuracy. Children witnessed a man stealing property and were later asked to identify him in either photo or video lineups. Some lineups contained the target and some did not. Two lineup procedures were used (standard or elimination), and 2 types of instruction were used (standard or cautioning about false identification). Standard lineups with cautioning instructions decreased target-absent errors with no associated reduction in correct identifications, but elimination lineups did not. Lineup media had an interaction effect whereby correct identifications were reduced in video but not photo elimination lineups. The results are discussed in a forensic context.     

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.     

Evidence of differential performance on simultaneous and sequential lineups for individuals with autism-spectrum traits

Given the impaired facial recognition of autistic individuals, we examined whether certain autism-spectrum traits affected eyewitness identification performance in a general adult population. In a sample of 120 individuals, levels of autism-spectrum traits were examined in relation to performance on simultaneous vs. sequential lineups using a signal detection paradigm. For simultaneous lineups, total Autism Spectrum Quotient (AQ) scores and scores on the excessive Attention to detail subscale were related to fewer hits and a more conservative response criterion. Attention to detail interacted with lineup type in that it was significantly related to improved discrimination accuracy and a less conservative response criterion in sequential lineups, but with impaired discrimination accuracy and a more conservative response criterion in simultaneous lineups. Higher AQ scores on the Attention switching subscale resulted in fewer hits, lower discrimination accuracy, and a more conservative response criterion with sequential lineups. Additionally, partial disguises led to more false alarms but not decreased accuracy. More thorough investigations of the effect of lineup type on identifications are needed before policy changes are recommended.     

Faces in Motion: Age‐Related Changes in Eyewitness Identification Performance in Simultaneous,Sequential, and Elimination Video Lineups

The identification performance of children (5 to 6 years, n = 180; 9 to 10 years, n = 180) and adults (n = 180) was examined using three types of video lineup procedures: simultaneous, sequential and elimination. Participants viewed a videotaped staged theft and then attempted to identify the culprit from a target‐present or target‐absent video lineup. Correct identifications in simultaneous and elimination video lineups did not differ as a function of age. The sequential video lineup was associated with a reduction in correct identifications for both child groups compared with adults. With respect to the target‐absent lineup condition, the video elimination lineup was associated with an increase in correct rejection rates for adult witnesses. Age was also significantly associated with accuracy. Differences in correct rejection rates were observed between adults and children and also between the two child groups. Implications and future directions are discussed. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Attempts to Improve Children's Identifications From Sequential-Presentation Lineups

The effectiveness of practice and stringent lineup instructions in improving children's identifications from sequential-presentation lineups was investigated. Elementary school children ( N = 144) viewed a slide sequence of a crime followed by practice or control procedures. In the practice conditions, children either practiced themselves (self) or watched a videotape of a child practicing (modeled). Practice consisted of 2 target-absent lineups (unmixed) or a target-absent lineup and a target-present lineup (mixed) of female photos unrelated to the crime. The control conditions did not engage in identification practice. All witnesses were given stringent instructions for identifying the criminal from target-present or target-absent sequential-presentation lineups. Multiple responding was dramatically reduced. Practice affected gender differentially. Female children increased in correct identifications, whereas male children increased in false rejections. None of the practice procedures reduced foil identifications from target-absent lineups.     

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.     

Eyewitness decisions in simultaneous and sequential lineups: A dual-process signal detection theory analysis

Many eyewitness researchers have argued for the application of a sequential alternative to the traditional simultaneous lineup, given its role in decreasing false identifications of innocent suspects (sequential superiority effect). However, Ebbesen and Flowe (2002) have recently noted that sequential lineups may merely bring about a shift in response criterion, having no effect on discrimination accuracy. We explored this claim, using a method that allows signal detection theory measures to be collected from eyewitnesses. In three experiments, lineup type was factorially combined with conditions expected to influence response criterion and/or discrimination accuracy. Results were consistent with signal detection theory predictions, including that of a conservative criterion shift with the sequential presentation of lineups. In a fourth experiment, we explored the phenomenological basis for the criterion shift, using the remember-know-guess procedure. In accord with previous research, the criterion shift in sequential lineups was associated with a reduction in familiarity-based responding. It is proposed that the relative similarity between lineup members may create a context in which fluency-based processing is facilitated to a greater extent when lineup members are presented simultaneously.     

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.     

Improving the identification accuracy of senior witnesses: do prelineup questions and sequential testing help?

Eyewitness research has identified sequential lineup testing as a way of reducing false lineup choices while maintaining accurate identifications. The authors examined the usefulness of this procedure for reducing false choices in older adults. Young and senior witnesses viewed a crime video and were later presented with target present orabsent lineups in a simultaneous or sequential format. In addition, some participants received prelineup questions about their memory for a perpetrator's face and about their confidence in their ability to identify the culprit or to correctly reject the lineup. The sequential lineup reduced false choosing rates among young and older adults in target-absent conditions. In target-present conditions, sequential testing significantly reduced the correct identification rate in both age groups.     

Face and voice identifications in showups and lineups

Witnesses were asked to identify a young adult female target to whom they had spoken for 15 seconds five minutes earlier in a naturalistic field setting. Subjects were given a single facial photograph or a single tape-recorded voice of either the target or a highly similar foil, or a target-present or target-absent six-person photo lineup or six-person voice lineup. Identification of the target was superior in the six-person photo lineup than in the one-person photo lineup when choices were corrected for guessing. False identifications of the ‘innocent’ suspect did not differ in one-person and six-person photo lineups. However, the diagnosticity index indicated that witnesses were twice as likely to be more accurate than inaccurate in making a selection with the six-person photo lineup than in the one-person lineup. Performance was poor in both one-person and six-person voice lineups. With the exception of the target-absent one-person photo lineup, no significant correlations were found between confidence and performance.     

The Psychology of Lineup Identifications1

A review is made of issues and data on eyewitness identifications, and a relative-judgment conceptualization is proposed. It is argued that eyewitnesses are prone to choose the lineup member who most resembles the perpetrator relative to other lineup members as evidenced by studies that manipulated similarity of lineup members. The relative-judgment strategy is fallacious because of the unpredictable occurrence of target-absent lineups and is not corrected fully by instructions to eyewitnesses. An extension of the relative-judgment conceptualization proposes an inverse relationship between the goodness of witnesses' memories (quality and quantity of relevant information available in memory) and witnesses' tendencies to rely on relative judgments. This extended conceptualization was used to derive expectations regarding an experiment (N= 192 eyewitnesses) that used a blank lineup prior to presenting eyewitnesses with the actual lineup. The data indicated that a blank lineup can yield a diagnostic split of eyewitnesses; those who made no identification when presented with a blank lineup were less likely to make false identifications on the actual lineup than either the witnesses who identified someone from the blank lineup or the witnesses who were not presented with a blank lineup. The blank lineup did not produce a significant loss in accurate identifications. The practical implications of using blank lineups and the theoretical utility of the relative-judgment conceptualization are discussed.