Sequential lineup presentation: technique matters

Article Abstract:

Lindsay and Wells (1985) demonstrated that sequential lineup presentation was superior to simultaneous presentation. However, these benefits may have been dependent on specifics of the procedure used. Three experiments were conducted to test the influence on eyewitness accuracy of (a) a 'second chance' after viewing a sequential lineup (N sub. S = 180 and 32) and (b) prior knowledge of lineup size (N=254). When photos were presented simultaneously, a second opportunity to choose decreased correct rejection decisions and increased false identifications without increasing the correct identification rate. However, a second sequential presentation did not lead to significant changes in identification decisions. Knowledge of the number of lineup members in a sequential lineup increased selections of an innocent suspect. Witnesses viewing sequential lineups should not be aware of the number of faces to be presented and should not be allowed to view the lineup more than once. (Reprinted by permission of the publisher.)

Psychological aspects, Methods, Evaluation, Sequential analysis, Pre-trial procedure, Pretrial procedure

---

Does nominal lineup size matter?

Article Abstract:

The minimum number of distractors required in a lineup varies across jurisdictions. However, available data do not support the importance of nominal lineup size as a criterion of lineup fairness. Two staged-crime experiments were conducted in which the central manipulation was lineup size. In the first experiment (N = 192), lineup structure was varied by adding 0, 3, or 6 poor foils (persons not resembling the suspect) to a relatively good lineup containing the suspect (guilty or innocent) and 3 good foils (persons resembling the suspect). This manipulation did not significantly influence the rates of either correct or false identification. A second experiment (N = 270) was conducted in which 4, 8, 12 , 16, and 20 people were presented with all good foils. Once again, nominal size was found to have no significant effect on the rates of correct and false identification. The importance of nominal lineup size relative to other aspects of lineup procedure is discussed. (Reprinted by permission of the publisher.)

Criminal investigation

---

Biased lineups: sequential presentation reduces the problem

Article Abstract:

Biased lineups have been shown to increase significantly false, but not correct, idenfification 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 present lineups sequentially. (Reprinted by permission of the publisher.)

Psychology, Forensic, Forensic psychology

Similar abstracts:

• Abstracts: Accuracy or consequential validity: which is the better standard for job analysis data? Do national levels of individualism and internal locus of control relate to well-being: an ecological level international study
• Abstracts: Cue representation and selection effects of arousal on persuasion. The effects of physiological arousal on information processing and persuasion
• Abstracts: Compensation satisfaction: its measurement and dimensionality. The matching model: an examination of the processes underlying realistic job previews
• Abstracts: Templates of original innovation: projecting original incremental innovations from intrinsic information. Using cellular automata modeling of the emergence of innovations
• Abstracts: The trouble with LEADER MATCH is that it doesn't match Fiedler's contingency model. The trouble with assumptions: a reply to Jago and Ragan

This website is not affiliated with document authors or copyright owners. This page is provided for informational purposes only. Unintentional errors are possible.