Multiple independent identification decisions: a method of calibrating eyewitness identifications

Two experiments (N = 147 and N = 90) explored the use of multiple independent lineups to identify a target seen live. In Experiment 1, simultaneous face, body, and sequential voice lineups were used. In Experiment 2, sequential face, body, voice, and clothing lineups were used. Both studies demonstrated that multiple identifications (by the same witness) from independent lineups of different features are highly diagnostic of suspect guilt (G. L. Wells & R. C. L. Lindsay, 1980). The number of suspect and foil selections from multiple independent lineups provides a powerful method of calibrating the accuracy of eyewitness identification. Implications for use of current methods are discussed.     

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.     

Biased lineups: sequential presentation reduces the problem.

Biased lineups have been shown to increase significantly false, but not correct, identification rates (Lindsay, Wallbridge, & Drennan, 1987; Lindsay & Wells, 1980; Malpass & Devine, 1981). Lindsay and Wells (1985) found that sequential lineup presentation reduced false identification rates, presumably by reducing reliance on relative judgment processes. Five staged-crime experiments were conducted to examine the effect of lineup biases and sequential presentation on eyewitness recognition accuracy. Sequential lineup presentation significantly reduced false identification rates from fair lineups as well as from lineups biased with regard to foil similarity, instructions, or witness attire, and from lineups biased in all of these ways. The results support recommendations that police present lineups sequentially.     

Do strict rules and moving images increase the reliability of sequential identification procedures?

Live identification procedures in England and Wales have been replaced by use of video, which provides a sequential presentation of facial images. Sequential presentation of photographs provides some protection to innocent suspects from mistaken identification when used with strict instructions designed to prevent relative judgements (Lindsay, Lea, & Fulford, 1991 ). However, the current procedure in England and Wales is incompatible with these strict instructions. The reported research investigated whether strict instructions would enhance the reliability of identification from video. The effect of using moving rather than still video clips was also investigated. Participants witnessed a live staged incident, and attempted to identify the culprit later from police video lineups, which were run double blind. Strict instructions produced a significantly lower rate of correct identifications in culprit present lineups, but did not significantly reduce the rate of mistaken identification in culprit absent lineups. Moving images yielded fewer mistaken identifications in culprit absent lineups. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Sequential lineups: shift in criterion or decision strategy?

R. C. L. Lindsay and G. L. Wells (1985) argued that a sequential lineup enhanced discriminability because it elicited use of an absolute decision strategy. E. B. Ebbesen and H. D. Flowe (2002) argued that a sequential lineup led witnesses to adopt a more conservative response criterion, thereby affecting bias, not discriminability. Height was encoded as absolute (e.g., 6 ft [1.83 m] tall) or relative (e.g., taller than). If a sequential lineup elicited an absolute decision strategy, the principle of transfer-appropriate processing predicted that performance should be best when height was encoded absolutely. Conversely, if a simultaneous lineup elicited a relative decision strategy, performance should be best when height was encoded relatively. The predicted interaction was observed, providing direct evidence for the decision strategies explanation of what happens when witnesses view a sequential lineup.     

Postdictors of eyewitness errors: can false identifications be diagnosed?

Eyewitness researchers have "postdicted" identification accuracy using witness confidence (S. L. Sporer, S. Penrod, D. Read, & B. Cutler, 1995), response latency (S. L. Sporer, 1993, 1994), and endorsement of statements consistent with using relative versus absolute judgment strategies (D. Dunning & L. B. Stern, 1994; R. C. L. Lindsay & K. Bellinger, 1999). All of these measures were collected from 321 introductory psychology students who had viewed a staged crime and completed a lineup identification task. Some participants received feedback after identification (G. L. Wells & A. L. Bradfield, 1998). Lineup fairness was also used as a postdictor of eyewitness accuracy. Discriminant function analysis indicated that 75.2% of choosers and 63.0% of nonchoosers were correctly classified. Decision time and lineup fairness were the best postdictors of accuracy. The implications for postdicting real eyewitness decisions are discussed.     

The damaging effect of confirming feedback on the relation between eyewitness certainty and identification accuracy

The authors investigated eyewitnesses' retrospective certainty (see G. L. Wells & A. L. Bradfield, 1999). The authors hypothesized that extemal influence from the lineup administrator would damage the certainty-accuracy relation by inflating the retrospective certainty of inaccurate eyewitnesses more than that of accurate eyewitnesses (N = 245). Two variables were manipulated: eyewitness accuracy (through the presence or absence of the culprit in the lineup) and feedback (confirming vs. control). Confirming feedback inflated retrospective certainty more for inaccurate eyewitnesses than for accurate eyewitnesses, significantly reducing the certainty-accuracy relation (from r = .58 in the control condition to r = .37 in the confirming feedback condition). Double-blind testing is recommended for lineups to prevent these external influences on eyewitnesses.     

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.     

Unravelling the effects of sequential presentation in culprit‐present lineups

It is well established that sequential presentation of faces in an eyewitness situation can reduce false identification rates. The effect of a sequential presentation on the probability of accurately identifying a culprit when present in a lineup is less clear. The current study examined the efficacy of the sequential procedure in culprit present lineups approximating the real life condition where a person's appearance has changed between the time they were seen and the identification. Young (17–33 years) and older (58–80 years) witnesses viewed a video of a crime and then engaged in some filler tasks. Later they viewed a culprit‐present lineup presented in a simultaneous or sequential format. Some witnesses viewed lineups in which target appearance (hairstyle) had changed and some where it had not. Sequential testing was associated with fewer choices (hits and foil choices) as compared to simultaneous testing. A change of appearance lowered hit rates in sequential test conditions among young adults. Finally, participants in sequential conditions were more likely to report that they expected the target to be present in the lineup. We advise policy makers not to advocate sequential testing until we have a full understanding of the conditions under which the sequential‐superiority effect may be observed. Copyright © 2003 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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Event-related potential (ERP) evidence for varied recollection during source monitoring

The source monitoring framework (SMF; M. K. Johnson, S. Hashtroudi, & D. S. Lindsay, 1993) posits that source monitoring can be supported by varying degrees of recollection. Source judgments were made for words heard at study (male or female voice) followed by remember/know (RK) judgments in order to assess differences in degrees of recollection during source monitoring (J. L. Hicks, R. L. Marsh, & L. Ritschel, 2002). The neural correlate of recollection was examined by contrasting event-related potentials (ERPs) for R and K responses that followed accurate source judgments. The recollection ERP effect was greater for R than K responses but greater for K responses than correct rejections, which reinforces the behavioral evidence that indicates source monitoring can be supported by varying degrees of recollection. A robust late posterior negativity ERP effect was present and began earlier for accurate source judgments given subsequent R than K responses. This is interpreted as reflecting systematic decision processes that are described by the SMF.     

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.     

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.     

Memory distortion in eyewitnesses: a meta‐analysis of the post‐identification feedback effect

Feedback administered to eyewitnesses after they make a line‐up identification dramatically distorts a wide range of retrospective judgements (e.g. G. L. Wells & A. L. Bradfield, 1998 Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(3), 360–376.). This paper presents a meta‐analysis of extant research on post‐identification feedback, including 20 experimental tests with over 2400 participant‐witnesses. The effect of confirming feedback (i.e. ‘Good, you identified the suspect’) was robust. Large effect sizes were obtained for most dependent measures, including the key measures of retrospective certainty, view and attention. Smaller effect sizes were obtained for so‐called objective measures (e.g. length of time the culprit was in view) and comparisons between disconfirming feedback and control conditions. This meta‐analysis demonstrates the reliability and robustness of the post‐identification feedback effect. It reinforces recommendations for double‐blind testing, recording of eyewitness reports immediately after an identification is made, and reconsideration by court systems of variables currently recommended for consideration in eyewitness evaluations. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.