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.     

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.     

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.     

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 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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Supporting child witnesses during identification lineups: Exploring the effectiveness of registered intermediaries

Performance at identification lineup was assessed in eighty‐five 6‐ to 11‐year‐old typically developing children. Children viewed a live staged event involving 2 male actors, and were asked to identify the perpetrators from 2 separate lineups (one perpetrator‐present lineup and one perpetrator‐absent lineup). Half the children took part in lineups adapted by a registered intermediary (an impartial, trained professional who facilitates understanding and communication between vulnerable witnesses and members of the justice system), and half took part in “best‐practice” lineups, according to the current guidance for eyewitness identification in England and Wales. Children receiving assistance from a registered intermediary (relative to children who received best‐practice lineups) were more accurate in their identifications for perpetrator‐present lineups, and there was some evidence that they were also more accurate for perpetrator‐absent lineups. This provides the first empirical evidence for the effectiveness of registered intermediary support during identification lineups.