Do the clothes make the man? An exploration of the effect of lineup attire on eyewitness identification accuracy.

In 3 experiments, 392 undergraduates witnessed staged crimes and attempted to identify criminals from photographic lineups containing a picture of the guilty party or a similar looking but innocent suspect. Lineup attire was manipulated: (1) Only the suspects wore clothing similar to that worn during the crime (biased lineups); (2) everyone wore different attire (usual lineups); and (3) everyone was dressed alike. Data reveal that the rate of identifications of the guilty party was not influenced by lineup attire. However, the innocent suspect was most likely to be identified from a clothing-biased lineup. Data also show that Ss who selected the suspect clothing from photographs of clothing were significantly more accurate in their identification of the person than Ss who failed to select the suspect clothing. (French abstract) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

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. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

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. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

What do we know about eyewitness identification?

A better understanding of eyewitness identification from lineups and photospreads has emerged in the psychological literature over the last dozen years. The structural and procedural aspects of lineups have been likened to the conduct of an experiment with direct analogies to experimenter effects, confoundings, and control conditions. The process of lineup identifications seems to be governed at least in part by relative similarity judgments, which prove to be problematic wherever the actual culprit is not a member of the lineup. Several advances have been made in the instructions, structure, content, and evaluation of lineups and photospreads that can improve the ratio of accurate to false identifications. Combinations of the best features of a lineup can produce well-defined upper limits on false identification rates. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Response biases in lineups and showups.

The showup, or presentation of a single suspect to an eyewitness, is widely believed to be a more biased and suggestive identification procedure than the lineup even though there has been no empirical work on this issue. Results suggest, however, that witnesses at a lineup are less likely to say "not there" than are witnesses at a showup. This tendency is seen in both live and photographic identification procedures, in both laboratory studies and real-world identifications. Showups in the lab resulted in no more mistaken identifications than lineups. Results also suggest that a showup is not equivalent to a poor lineup (i.e., a lineup with a functional size of 1). It is hypothesized that a showup leads to an absolute judgment, whereas a lineup leads to a relative judgment, and that the police pressures on witnesses are unlikely to be any greater for showup than for lineup identifications. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

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. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Seventy-two tests of the sequential lineup superiority effect: A meta-analysis and policy discussion.

A decade ago, a meta-analysis showed that identification of a suspect from a sequential lineup versus a simultaneous lineup was more diagnostic of guilt (Steblay, Dysart, Fulero, & Lindsay, 2001). Since then, controversy and debate regarding sequential superiority has emerged. We report the results of a new meta-analysis involving 72 tests of simultaneous and sequential lineups from 23 different labs involving 13,143 participant-witnesses. The results are very similar to the 2001 results in showing that the sequential lineup is less likely to result in an identification of the suspect, but also more diagnostic of guilt than is the simultaneous lineup. An examination of the full diagnostic design dataset (27 tests that used the full simultaneous/sequential × culprit-present/culprit-absent design) showed that the average gap in correct identifications favoring the simultaneous lineup over the sequential lineup—8%—is smaller than the 15% figure obtained from the 2001 meta-analysis (and from the current full 72-test dataset). The lower error rate incurred for culprit-absent lineups with use of a sequential format remains consistent across the years, with 22% fewer errors than simultaneous lineups. A Bayesian analysis shows that the posterior probability of guilt following an identification of the suspect is higher for the sequential lineup across the entire base rate for culprit presence/absence. New ways to think about policy issues are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)     

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 or absent 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. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Improving eyewitness identifications from lineups: Simultaneous versus sequential lineup presentation.

Investigated the effectiveness of sequential lineup presentation as a means of reducing false identifications with little or no loss in accurate identifications. A crime was staged for 240 unsuspecting eyewitnesses (undergraduates) either individually or in pairs. One-fourth of the Ss attempted identifications in each of 4 lineup conditions: 6 pictures were presented either simultaneously, as used in traditional procedures, or sequentially, in which yes/no judgments were made for each picture; each procedure either contained the photograph of the criminal–confederate or a picture of a similar looking replacement. Results indicate that sequential lineup presentation significantly reduced false identifications but did not significantly influence correct identifications when compared with a simultaneous procedure. It is concluded that sequential presentation of lineups can reduce false identifications of innocent suspects by reducing eyewitnesses' reliance on relative-judgment processes. (18 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Eyewitness identification accuracy, confidence, and decision times in simultaneous and sequential lineups.

Eyewitness identification accuracy was investigated in simultaneous and sequential lineups. 72 Ss watched a film of a robbery in a public park under incidental learning conditions and returned to the laboratory the following day to answer questions about the film. Sequential lineup procedures led to significantly fewer false identifications than the simultaneous lineup mode, with comparable performance in detecting the perpetrator in target-present conditions. Alternative methods for analyzing confidence and decision times in sequential lineups are presented which allow for more fine-grained analyses of the relationships between accuracy, confidence, and decision times both between and within Ss. Distinguishing between choosers and nonchoosers, these analyses show the predictive utility of decision times and confidence as assessment variables. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Eyewitness identification: Lineup instructions and the absence of the offender.

100 college student eyewitnesses of a staged vandalism received varying lineup instructions under conditions in which the offender was present or absent. Biased instructions implied that Ss were to choose someone, whereas unbiased instructions provided a "no choice" option. Ss viewed corporeal lineups on 1 of 3 evenings following the vandalism. A high rate of choosing occurred under biased instructions, and the lowest rate occurred under unbiased instructions with the vandal absent. Identification errors were highest under biased instructions with the vandal absent. With the vandal present under biased instructions all errors were false identifications, whereas under unbiased instructions all errors were false rejections of the lineup. Confidence ratings were obtained following Ss' identification decision. Ss making a choice had high confidence scores, whereas those rejecting the lineup had low confidence scores. Unbiased instructions reduced choosing and false identifications without decreasing correct identifications. Both identifications and nonidentifications had greater "diagnosticity" under unbiased than under biased instructions. (27 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Effects of Postidentification Feedback on Eyewitness Identification and Nonidentification Confidence.

Two experiments investigated new dimensions of the effect of confirming feedback on eyewitness identification confidence using target-absent and target-present lineups and (previously unused) unbiased witness instructions (i.e., "offender not present" option highlighted). In Experiment 1, participants viewed a crime video and were later asked to try to identify the thief from an 8-person target-absent photo array. Feedback inflated witness confidence for both mistaken identifications and correct lineup rejections. With target-present lineups in Experiment 2, feedback inflated confidence for correct and mistaken identifications and lineup rejections. Although feedback had no influence on the confidence-accuracy correlation, it produced clear overconfidence. Confidence inflation varied with the confidence measure reference point (i.e., retrospective vs. current confidence) and identification response latency. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

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. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Identification accuracy of children versus adults: a meta-analysis

Identification accuracy of children and adults was examined in a meta-analysis. Preschoolers (M = 4 years) were less likely than adults to make correct identifications. Children over the age of 5 did not differ significantly from adults with regard to correct identification rate. Children of all ages examined were less likely than adults to correctly reject a target-absent lineup. Even adolescents (M = 12-13 years) did not reach an adult rate of correct rejection. Compared to simultaneous lineup presentation, sequential lineups increased the child-adult gap for correct rejections. Providing child witnesses with identification practice or training did not increase their correct rejection rates. Suggestions for children's inability to correctly reject target-absent lineups are discussed. Future directions for identification research are presented.     

How critical is the accuracy of an eyewitness's memory? Another look at the issue of lineup diagnosticity.

It is argued that the effect of the reliability of lineup identification on the value of lineups for diagnosing guilt of a suspect may often be limited. Focusing on reliability may have the psychological effect of camouflaging the full evidential value of lineups, which largely depends on ecological likelihoods. A way to conceptualize that value by using Bayesian terminology is proposed. It is suggested that forensic psychologists take ecological parameters into account in evaluating the diagnosticity of any particular lineup if that is possible and, at any rate, consider the problem of reliability in the appropriate context. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Robustness of the sequential lineup advantage.

A growing movement in the United States and around the world involves promoting the advantages of conducting an eyewitness lineup in a sequential manner. We conducted a large study (N = 2,529) that included 24 comparisons of sequential versus simultaneous lineups. A liberal statistical criterion revealed only 2 significant sequential lineup advantages and 3 significant simultaneous advantages. Both sequential advantages occurred when the good photograph of the guilty suspect or either innocent suspect was in the fifth position in the sequential lineup; all 3 simultaneous advantages occurred when the poorer quality photograph of the guilty suspect or either innocent suspect was in the second position. Adjusting the statistical criterion to control for the multiple tests (.05/24) revealed no significant sequential advantages. Moreover, despite finding more conservative overall choosing for the sequential lineup, no support was found for the proposal that a sequential advantage was due to that conservative criterion shift. Unless lineups with particular characteristics predominate in the real world, there appears to be no strong preference for conducting lineups in either a sequential or a simultaneous manner. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Eyewitness identification: The importance of lineup models.

Presents a detailed analysis of lineup models for eyewitness identification. It is argued that previous treatments of eyewitness identification have not distinguished between the all-suspect model and the single-suspect model. The single-suspect model allows for the occurrence of foil identifications, a known-error category, whereas the all-suspect model does not. A Bayesian analysis of posterior probabilities of the guilt of a given suspect under various prior probabilities shows that the all-suspect model may be more or less diagnostic than the single-suspect model depending on the extent to which the use of suspects rather than foils increases the prior likelihood that the actual target is in the lineup. On the other hand, the lineup-wise error rate (which is the likelihood that any suspect will be falsely identified) is considerably higher with the all-suspect lineup. Field data show that the all-suspect lineup is sometimes used by police departments, and some data suggest that police do not appreciate the distinction between the 2 models with regard to lineup-wise error rates. It is recommended that either a mixed model or a preceding blank lineup be used to replace all-suspect models in actual cases. (32 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Elimination lineups: An improved identification procedure for child eyewitnesses.

Elimination lineup procedures were proposed that required the witness to eliminate all but 1 lineup member before being asked if the remaining lineup member was the criminal. Elimination lineups were designed and tested with the aim of reducing false-positive choices by child eyewitnesses (n?=?587 children, 10–14 years, M?=?12 years; n?=?185 adults). Elimination lineups decreased false-positive responding in children without significantly reducing correct identifications. Fast elimination lineups with modified instructions emphasizing the negative consequences of identifying an innocent person and explaining how to make an absolute judgment significantly decreased children's false-positive rate to a level comparable with adults shown a simultaneous lineup. The potential benefits of elimination lineup procedures for child witnesses are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

A policy evaluation of simultaneous and sequential lineups.

Many states and communities are rewriting their eyewitness identification policies. Some of these jurisdictions are excluding simultaneous lineups altogether, and others are allowing them if double-blind administration of sequential lineups is not possible. The Innocence Project advocates the latter and puts forward blind sequential-lineup administration as the best form of lineup identification. Although sequential lineups are claimed to be superior, no explicit policy analysis has been done. In the present study, the author uses a policy-analysis model based on decision theory to examine the utility of simultaneous and sequential lineups, as well as to examine a range of values placed on identification outcomes and their probabilities. Simultaneous lineups are shown to be superior to sequential lineups under most conditions examined in this analysis. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)