Response to Lindsay,Mansour, Beaudry,Leach and Bertrand's Sequential lineup presentation: Patterns and policy

This paper is a response to the earlier paper by Lindsay, Mansour, Beaudry, Leach and Bertrand (2009). We argue that eyewitness research is an important public good and that high‐quality in research and policy formulations offered to the public interest is required to maintain our standing of trust. We argue that even though sequential lineups have been successfully codified in some jurisdictions as the exclusive eyewitness identification procedure, the claim of sequential superiority is built upon errors in the research process and that the evidence of reduced false identification with sequential lineups is completely offset by reductions in correct identifications. We reject the idea that the loss of correct identifications can be dismissed as guessing on the basis that this is speculative and that there is no published empirical support for the idea. We reject the idea that false identifications are necessarily more valuable for society to reduce than are correct identifications to achieve. Improvements in eyewitness identification are important, and interesting lines of investigation are available. It is questionable whether the sequential lineup is important among them.     

Sequential lineup presentation: Patterns and policy

Sequential lineups were offered as an alternative to the traditional simultaneous lineup. Sequential lineups reduce incorrect lineup selections; however, the accompanying loss of correct identifications has resulted in controversy regarding adoption of the technique. We discuss the procedure and research relevant to (1) the pattern of results found using sequential versus simultaneous lineups; (2) reasons (theory) for differences in witness responses; (3) two methodological issues; and (4) implications for policy decisions regarding the adoption of sequential lineups.     

Sequential lineup presentation promotes less-biased criterion setting but does not improve discriminability

When compared with simultaneous lineup presentation, sequential presentation has been shown to reduce false identifications to a greater extent than it reduces correct identifications. However, there has been much debate about whether this difference in identification performance represents improved discriminability or more conservative responding. In this research, data from 22 experiments that compared sequential and simultaneous lineups were analyzed using a compound signal-detection model, which is specifically designed to describe decision-making performance on tasks such as eyewitness identification tests. Sequential (cf. simultaneous) presentation did not influence discriminability, but produced a conservative shift in response bias that resulted in less-biased choosing for sequential than simultaneous lineups. These results inform understanding of the effects of lineup presentation mode on eyewitness identification decisions.     

Eyewitness Accuracy Rates in Police Showup and Lineup Presentations: A Meta-Analytic Comparison

Meta-analysis is used to compare identification accuracy rates in showups and lineups. Eight papers were located, providing 12 tests of the hypothesis and including 3013 participants. Results indicate that showups generate lower choosing rates than lineups. In target present conditions, showups and lineups yield approximately equal hit rates, and in target absent conditions, showups produce a significantly higher level of correct rejections. False identification rates are approximately equal in showups and lineups when lineup foil choices are excluded from analysis. Dangerous false identifications are more numerous for showups when an innocent suspect resembles the perpetrator. Function of lineup foils, assessment strategies for false identifications, and the potential impact of biases in lineup practice are suggested as additional considerations in evaluation of showup versus lineup efficacy.     

An analysis of multiple choices in MSL lineups,and a comparison with simultaneous and sequential ones

Abstract

Simultaneous lineups allow witnesses to compare lineup members, causing excessive mistaken identifications. Levi (1998b) has tested MSL lineups: they are sequential, larger, and allow multiple choices. [The MSL lineup was originally termed a Modified Sequential Lineup (Levi, 1998b). However, there are other modified sequential lineups.]

Each factor decreases mistaken identifications. However, witnesses make fewer single choices of culprits. Sometimes witnesses choose suspects more confidently than any foil. This analysis examines such multiple choices in four experiments. They account for half of multiple choices with culprits. Few foils are chosen, and such responses are rare in culprit-absent lineups, no more than single choices. They are therefore identifications too.

An experiment comparing simultaneous, sequential, and MSL lineups is also reported. The culprit was identified more in simultaneous lineups than in sequential ones. The simultaneous lineup had more mistaken choices than sequential and MSL lineups, whose results were identical. The simultaneous and sequential lineups were equally diagnostic, while the MSL lineup, four times larger, was more than four times more reliable.     

Much better than the sequential lineup: a 120-person lineup

Abstract

Large lineups may be more reliable than small ones. However, research has found greatly reduced identifications in 40-person lineups of photos shown sequentially one at a time. The task may be more difficult than necessary. Grouping photos may provide an easier one. Three studies had compared seven-page lineups (42, 84, or 168 members) with lineups of about 20. In the first two studies identification and mistaken choice rates were identical in the large and smaller lineup. Identifications in the 168-person lineup were much less. This study tested a 10-page 120-person lineup, and added a 12-person lineup. No difference was found between the 120- and 24-person lineups, and an interaction in 12-person lineups was found between graduate lab student witnesses and others. False identifications, and the probability that the suspect is innocent when ‘identified’, is much less in 120-person lineups than the 24- or 12-person lineups, or the sequential lineup.     

Eyewitness Identification in Actual Criminal Cases: An Archival Analysis

This study analyzed 271 actual police cases in order to address several prevalent issues in the eyewitness literature. Suspect identification (SI) rates were obtained for 289 photographic lineups, 258 field showups, 58 live lineups, and 66 lineup identifications preceded by earlier identifications. SI rates were assessed for 3 levels of extrinsic evidence: no extrinsic evidence, evidence of minimal probative value, and evidence of substantial probative value. The SI rates for the photographic lineups were assessed as a function of delay, same vs. cross-race conditions, witness type, and weapon presence. SI rates declined significantly over time; SI rates were significantly greater for the same-race condition. SI rates were much greater for field showups than photographic lineups, 76% vs. 48%. The SI rates for the field showups did not vary as a function of eyewitness conditions. The relation between confidence and suspect/foil identifications for the live lineups was significant and moderately high. The utility of archival identification studies for eyewitness testimony research is discussed.     

Moving Forward: Response to “Studying Eyewitness Investigations in the Field”

Field studies of eyewitness identification are richly confounded. Determining which confounds undermine interpretation is important. The blind administration confound in the Illinois study is said to undermine it’s value for understanding the relative utility of simultaneous and sequential lineups. Most criticisms of the Illinois study focus on filler identifications, and related inferences about the importance of the blind confound. We find no convincing evidence supporting this line of attack and wonder at filler identifications as the major line of criticism. More debilitating problems impede using the Illinois study to address the simultaneous versus sequential lineup controversy: inability to estimate guilt independent of identification evidence, lack of protocol compliance monitoring, and assessment of lineups quality. Moving forward requires removing these limitations.     

PC_Eyewitness and the Sequential Superiority Effect: Computer-Based Lineup Administration

Computer technology has become an increasingly important tool for conducting eyewitness identifications. In the area of lineup identifications, computerized administration offers several advantages for researchers and law enforcement. PC_Eyewitness is designed specifically to administer lineups. To assess this new lineup technology, two studies were conducted in order to replicate the results of previous studies comparing simultaneous and sequential lineups. One hundred twenty university students participated in each experiment. Experiment 1 used traditional paper-and-pencil lineup administration methods to compare simultaneous to sequential lineups. Experiment 2 used PC_Eyewitness to administer simultaneous and sequential lineups. The results of these studies were compared to the meta-analytic results reported by N. Steblay, J. Dysart, S. Fulero, and R. C. L. Lindsay (2001). No differences were found between paper-and-pencil and PC_Eyewitness lineup administration methods. The core findings of the N. Steblay et al. (2001) meta-analysis were replicated by both administration procedures. These results show that computerized lineup administration using PC_Eyewitness is an effective means for gathering eyewitness identification data.     

A Re-examination of the Effects of Biased Lineup Instructions in Eyewitness Identification

A meta-analytic review of research comparing biased and unbiased instructions in eyewitness identification experiments showed an asymmetry; specifically, that biased instructions led to a large and consistent decrease in accuracy in target-absent lineups, but produced inconsistent results for target-present lineups, with an average effect size near zero (Steblay, 1997). The results for target-present lineups are surprising, and are inconsistent with statistical decision theories (i.e., Green & Swets, 1966). A re-examination of the relevant studies and the meta-analysis of those studies shows clear evidence that correct identification rates do increase with biased lineup instructions, and that biased witnesses make correct identifications at a rate considerably above chance. Implications for theory, as well as police procedure and policy, are discussed.     

Accuracy of eyewitness identifications in showups and lineups

Experiment 1 tested one-person and six-person photographic lineup identifications in field situations either immediately, or 30 minutes, or 2 hours, or 24 hours after a 15-second ordinary encounter with a target. Accuracy of performance was superior in six-person lineups than in showups over time. False identifications of a lookalike innocent suspect were significantly greater in showups than in six-person lineups, especially when the suspect wore the same clothing as the culprit. Experiment 2 followed the same research design as Experiment 1, except that only live showup identifications were tested and, in addition, a physically dissimilar innocent suspect was shown to witnesses. The dissimilar innocent suspect was consistently and correctly rejected in the target-absent showup. Hit rates for live suspects were relatively low over the 24-h retention interval. Correct rejections significantly exceeded false identifications only on the immediate test. The lookalike innocent suspect was readily rejected when different clothing was worn at the test. No significant differences were found in hit scores or in confidence-accuracy scores between live and photographic targets. Confidence-accuracy correlations were significant but low across experimental conditions.     

The information gained from witnesses' responses to an initial "blank" lineup

Wells ("The psychology of lineup identifications," Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1984, 14, 89-103) proposed that a blank lineup (an initial lineup of known-to-be-innocent foils) can be used to screen eyewitnesses; witnesses who chose from a blank lineup (initial choosers) were more likely to make an error on a second lineup that contained a suspect than were witnesses who rejected a blank lineup (initial nonchoosers). Recent technological advances (e.g., computer-administered lineups) may overcome many of the practical difficulties cited as a barrier to the use of blank lineups. Our research extended knowledge about the blank lineup procedure by investigating the underlying causes of the difference in identification performance between initial choosers and initial nonchoosers. Studies 1a and 1b (total, N = 303) demonstrated that initial choosers were more likely to reject a second lineup than initial nonchoosers and witnesses who did not view a blank lineup, implying that cognitive biases (e.g., confirmation bias and commitment effects) influenced initial choosers' identification decisions. In Study 2 (N = 200), responses on a forced-choice identification test provided evidence that initial choosers have, on average, poorer memories for the culprit than do initial nonchoosers. We also investigated the usefulness of blank lineups for interpreting identification evidence. Diagnosticity ratios suggested that suspect identifications made by initial nonchoosers (cf. initial choosers) should have a greater impact on estimates of the likely guilt of the suspect. Furthermore, for initial nonchoosers, higher confidence in blank lineup rejections was associated with higher diagnosticity for subsequent suspect identifications. These results have implications for policy to guide the collection and interpretation of identification evidence. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved).     

A Re-examination of the Effects of Biased Lineup Instructions in Eyewitness Identification

A meta-analytic review of research comparing biased and unbiased instructions in eyewitness identification experiments showed an asymmetry, specifically that biased instructions led to a large and consistent decrease in accuracy in target-absent lineups, but produced inconsistent results for target-present lineups, with an average effect size near zero (N. M. Steblay, 1997). The results for target-present lineups are surprising, and are inconsistent with statistical decision theories (i.e., D. M. Green & J. A. Swets, 1966). A re-examination of the relevant studies and the meta-analysis of those studies shows clear evidence that correct identification rates do increase with biased lineup instructions, and that biased witnesses make correct identifications at a rate considerably above chance. Implications for theory, as well as police procedure and policy, are discussed.     

The Target-to-Foils Shift in Simultaneous and Sequential Lineups

A theoretical cornerstone in eyewitness identification research is the proposition that witnesses, in making decisions from standard simultaneous lineups, make relative judgments. The present research considers two sources of support for this proposal. An experiment by G. L. Wells (1993) showed that if the target is removed from a lineup, witnesses shift their responses to pick foils, rather than rejecting the lineups, a result we will term a target-to-foils shift. Additional empirical support is provided by results from sequential lineups which typically show higher accuracy than simultaneous lineups, presumably because of a decrease in the use of relative judgments in making identification decisions. The combination of these two lines of research suggests that the target-to-foils shift should be reduced in sequential lineups relative to simultaneous lineups. Results of two experiments showed an overall advantage for sequential lineups, but also showed a target-to-foils shift equal in size for simultaneous and sequential lineups. Additional analyses indicated that the target-to-foils shift in sequential lineups was moderated in part by an order effect and was produced with (Experiment 2) or without (Experiment 1) a shift in decision criterion. This complex pattern of results suggests that more work is needed to understand the processes which underlie decisions in simultaneous and sequential lineups.     

The effects of target discriminability and criterion placement on accuracy rates in sequential and simultaneous target-present lineups

Abstract

Participants attempted to select previously studied faces from lineups that were administered either sequentially (test faces presented one at a time) or simultaneously (test faces presented altogether). Target discriminability was manipulated by varying the number of facial features that could be used to distinguish the study face from the other test faces (foils) or by varying study face exposure duration. In addition, decision criterion level was manipulated via an instruction manipulation. Results indicated that sequential participants adopted a stricter decision standard under high criterion instructions compared to simultaneous participants. Under liberal criterion setting instructions, the rate at which the target was selected was comparable across lineup procedures. Target discriminability affected target selections to a greater extent in simultaneous compared to sequential lineups. We discuss the applied implications that these findings have regarding correct identifications from lineups.     

Lineup Identification by Children: Effects of Clothing Bias

This study examined effects of clothing cues on children's identification accuracy from lineups. Four- to 14-year-olds (n = 228) saw 12 video clips of individuals, each wearing a distinctly colored shirt. After watching each clip children were presented with a target-present or target-absent photo lineup. Three clothing conditions were included. In 2 conditions all lineup members wore the same colored shirt; in the third, biased condition, the shirt color of only one individual matched that seen in the preceding clip (the target in target-present trials and the replacement in target-absent trials). Correct identifications of the target in target-present trials were most frequent in the biased condition, whereas in target-absent trials the biased condition led to more false identifications of the target replacement. Older children were more accurate than younger children, both in choosing the target from target-present lineups and rejecting target-absent lineups. These findings suggest that a simple clothing cue such as shirt color can have a significant impact on children's lineup identification accuracy.     

Regularities in Eyewitness Identification

What do eyewitness identification experiments typically show? We address this question through a meta-analysis of 94 comparisons between target-present and target-absent lineups. The analyses showed that: (a) correct identifications and correct-nonidentifications were uncorrelated, (b) suspect identifications were more diagnostic with respect to the suspect’s guilt or innocence than any other response, (c) nonidentifications were diagnostic of the suspect’s innocence, (d) the diagnosticity of foil identifications depended on lineup composition, and (e) don’t know responses were nondiagnostic with respect to guilt or innocence. Results of diagnosticity analyses for simultaneous and sequential lineups varied for full-sample versus direct-comparison analyses. Diagnosticity patterns also varied as a function of lineup composition. Theoretical, forensic, and legal implications are discussed.     

Are children less reliable at making visual identifications than adults? A review

The current paper reviews research that has investigated developmental differences in lineup identification. A wealth of studies have shown that children can be as accurate as adults when making a correct identification from a target present lineup (TP), however children are more inclined to choose and thereby make a false identification from a target absent (TA) lineup, as compared to adults. The literature reviewed, suggests that the disparity between children's and adult's performances on TA lineups is due to children being unable to resist the social demands to choose someone from a lineup and/or the need to give a positive response. Employing a silhouette within a lineup, that can be chosen if the target is not recognised, appears to be the most successful technique for reducing false identifications made by child witnesses. Including a silhouette as a part of a lineup, along with the lineup administrator being attired in casual clothing, rather than a uniform, are two simple measures that could make child witness identification evidence more reliable.     

The Effect of Lineup Member Similarity on Recognition Accuracy in Simultaneous and Sequential Lineups

Two experiments investigated whether remembering is affected by the similarity of the study face relative to the alternatives in a lineup. In simultaneous and sequential lineups, choice rates and false alarms were larger in low compared to high similarity lineups, indicating criterion placement was affected by lineup similarity structure (Experiment 1). In Experiment 2, foil choices and similarity ranking data for target present lineups were compared to responses made when the target was removed from the lineup (only the 5 foils were presented). The results indicated that although foils were selected more often in target-removed lineups in the simultaneous compared to the sequential condition, responses shifted from the target to one of the foils at equal rates across lineup procedures.