A method for increasing empirical discriminability and eliminating top‐row preference in photo arrays

It is important to consider the two parameters of signal detection theory, discriminability and response bias, when evaluating eyewitness identification from simultaneous lineups. On the basis of the diagnostic feature‐detection hypothesis, we tested a method for increasing discriminability that encourages eyewitnesses to carefully rank each lineup member based on match to their memory for a perpetrator. This procedure increased empirical discriminability and also eliminated a response bias that is largely overlooked in the literature: Participants were biased to choose from the top row of the six‐pack (2 × 3) lineup commonly used in the United States. We argue that suspect position in the simultaneous lineup is an important variable to consider for researchers and the criminal justice system. We also encourage researchers to test the ranking procedure to determine if such a simple set of instructions could be utilized by police to help eyewitnesses correctly sort innocent versus guilty suspects.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Confidence and accuracy of lineup selections and rejections: Postdicting rejection accuracy with confidence

Correlation and calibration approaches show meaningful, positive confidence-accuracy relations for witnesses making selections from lineups, but rarely for rejections (Brewer and Wells, 2006, Sauerland and Sporer, 2009). This disparity may reflect the difference between selecting a single photo versus rejecting a set of photos. Participants (N = 101) in two experiments made selections from and rejections of lineups in situations requiring either a single confidence rating about a single face (typical of “choosers”) or a single confidence rating about multiple faces (typical of “nonchoosers”). Mean confidence ratings were significantly higher for accurate versus inaccurate decisions for both selections and rejections when decisions were based on single faces. Single decisions about multiple faces produced no significant difference in confidence between correct and incorrect rejections but a significant difference for selections.     

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.     

Blame attribution in sexual victimization

The current study explored how victims and third-parties attribute blame and perpetrator motivation for actual sexual victimization experiences. Although we do not assert that victims are responsible for perpetrators’ behavior, we found that some victims do not allocate all blame to their perpetrator. We sought to examine how victims and third-parties allocate blame in instances of actual completed and attempted sexual victimization and how they perceived perpetrator motivations. Victims of completed rape (n = 49) and attempted sexual assault (n = 91), and third-parties who knew a victim of sexual assault (n = 152) allocated blame across multiple targets: perpetrator, self/victim, friends, family, and the situation. Participants also described their perceptions of perpetrator’s motivation for the sexual assault. Victims tended to assign more blame to themselves than third-parties assigned to victims. Furthermore, victims perceived perpetrators as being more sexually-motivated than third-parties did, who viewed perpetrators as more power-motivated. Results suggest that perceptions of rape and sexual assault significantly differ between victims and third-party individuals who have never directly experienced such a trauma.     

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.     

Sequential modulations of poorer-strategy effects during strategy execution: An event-related potential study in arithmetic

When participants accomplish cognitive tasks, they obtain poorer performance if asked to execute a poorer strategy than a better strategy on a given problem. These poorer-strategy effects are smaller following execution of a poorer strategy relative to following a better strategy. To investigate ERP correlates of sequential modulations of poorer-strategy effects, we asked participants (n = 20) to accomplish a computational estimation task (i.e., provide approximate products to two-digit multiplication problems like 38 × 74). For each problem, they were cued to execute a better versus a poorer strategy. We found event-related potentials signatures of sequential modulations of poorer-strategy effects in two crucial windows (i.e., between 200 and 550 ms and between 850 and 1250 ms) associated with executive control mechanisms and allowing conflict monitoring between the better and the cued strategy. These results have important implications on theories of strategies as they suggest that sequential modulations of poorer-strategy effects involve earlier as well as later mechanisms of cognitive control during strategy execution.     

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.     

Witnesses’ memories for lineup fillers postdicts their identification accuracy

Witnesses who have quick, automatic recognition experiences when viewing a lineup tend to make more accurate decisions than witnesses who engage in slower, more deliberative processes. A novel postdictor of identification accuracy is predicted from these findings: memories for lineup fillers should be stronger among inaccurate, rather than accurate, witnesses. Undergraduate students (N = 320) viewed a mock crime, made a lineup identification decision, and were given a surprise test for their memory for the lineup fillers. Consistent with predictions, better memories for lineup fillers postdicted mistaken identifications and the suspect's innocence. Information gain analyses showed that under some conditions, memory for lineup fillers provided as much information about the suspect's guilt as a lineup identification. Findings are consistent with the idea that postdictors of eyewitness accuracy are valuable to the extent that they measure the automaticity or deliberativeness of the witness's experience when viewing the lineup.