Guidelines for empirically assessing the fairness of a lineup

Issues regarding the fairness of lineups used for criminal identification are discussed in the context of a distinction between nominal size and functional size. Nominal size (the number of persons in the lineup) is less important for determining the fairness of a lineup than is functional size (the number of lineup members resembling the criminal). Functional size decreases to the extent that the nonsuspect members of the lineup are easily ruled out as not being suspected by the police. The extent to which the identification of the suspect can be considered an independently derived piece of incriminating evidence is positively related to functional size. Empirical estimates of functional size can be obtained through pictures of the corporal lineup from which mock witnesses make guesses of whom they believe the police suspect. A distinction is made between a functional size approach and hypothesis testing approaches. Uses of functional size notions in the court, by police, and in research are discussed.     

Own-race bias in lineup construction

The lineup identification of a suspect is often a critical stage in a criminal investigation. One factor which may affect the fairness of a lineup is bias on the part of the person constructing the lineup. the own-race bias, the tendency of individuals to perceive more similarity in the appearance of other-race members than in their own, may affect lineup development. Black subjects and white subjects were asked to construct lineups using both black and white suspects. On three of four measures, their behavior was very similar while making white lineups but different on black lineups. Relative to their performance on white lineups, white subjects became less selective on black lineups but black subjects became even more selective on black lineups. Both groups displayed own-race bias by being more selective about own-race photos than other-race photos. This lessening of selectivity may make lineups constructed by cross-race lineup constructors less fair than lineups constructed by own-race lineup constructors.     

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.     

Age differences (or lack thereof) in discriminability for lineups and showups

Previous research reveals that showups are an inferior eyewitness identification procedure to lineups, but no single study has compared younger and older adults' identification decisions for both of these procedures. We had witnesses watch a mock crime video and then make an identification decision from a fair lineup, a biased lineup, or a showup that contained the perpetrator or a designated innocent suspect. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis showed that identification accuracy was higher from a lineup than from a showup for both age groups, even if the lineup was biased. In addition, calibration curves revealed that witnesses were underconfident when choosing from a fair lineup but overconfident when choosing from a showup. These results reinforce prior research asserting the superiority of lineups over showups.     

The effect of choice reversals on blindness for identification decisions

The present study examined blindness for identification decisions from target-present (TP) and target-absent (TA) lineups using a field study methodology. Eighty pedestrians were exposed to a staged theft. Subsequently, they were asked to identify the thief and the victim from separate, simultaneous six-person lineups. Their identification decision concerning the thief lineup was manipulated such that participants’ selections were exchanged with a previously unidentified lineup member (choice exchange) and lineup rejections were turned into identifications (choice reversal). Participants were 7–10 times less likely to detect choice exchanges (66.7%) compared with choice reversals (11.2%). Furthermore, identification accuracy was not a prerequisite for detection. Thus, rejections and particularly selections made from both TP and TA lineups are susceptible to choice blindness. Finally, our study implies that for blindness in eyewitness identification decisions between-category changes (i.e. choice reversals) are easier to detect than within-category changes (i.e. choice exchanges).     

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.     

Does Lineup Size Matter with Child Witnesses

Children’s (N = 89) identification accuracy was examined as a function of lineup size. Participants (8–13 years) viewed a videotaped staged event, described what was witnessed and then were presented with either a target-present or—absent lineup containing 6 versus 12 lineup members. The elimination lineup procedure (Pozzulo and Lindsay J Appl Psychol 38: 2195–2209 1999) was used to present lineups. No significant differences in correct identification rates were found across the target-present sized lineups. In addition, the target was likely to “survive” at a comparable rate regardless of lineup size. Moreover, there was no significant difference in correct rejection rate as a function of lineup size. The non significance of these data are critical given that most research with child witnesses uses 6-person lineups whereas in many real world contexts larger sized lineups are used (e.g., 12-person in Canada).     

An attempt to reduce guessing behavior in children's and adults' eyewitness identifications

The effects of age of witness, gender of witness, lineup presentation, and practice on eyewitness testimony were investigated. Ninety-six elementary-school children and 96 college students viewed a slide sequence of a crime, followed by target-present or target-absent photo identification in sequentially or simultaneously presented lineups. Prior to photo identification, half the subjects received a practice lineup. Children had a higher rate of choosing than adults, resulting in more foil identification errors in both target-present and target-absent lineups. Without prior practice, sequential presentation as compared to simultaneous presentation reduced errors in target-absent lineups for adult witnesses and showed a similar but nonsignificant reduction for child witnesses. With prior practice, sequential presentation lost the advantage over simultaneous presentation in target-absent error reduction. Practice reduced target-absent errors in simultaneous-presentation lineups for both age groups.     

Simultaneous,Sequential, Elimination,and Wildcard: A Comparison of Lineup Procedures

This study compared four lineup procedures: the simultaneous, sequential, elimination, and wildcard. Two hundred and sixty-nine university students (M = 20.17 years) watched a mock, videotaped crime. Then, following a brief delay, they viewed a 6-person target-present or -absent lineup using one of the four lineup procedures. For target-present lineups, correct identification rates for the four lineup procedures were comparable. In contrast, for target-absent lineups, the correct rejection rate was higher using the elimination lineup procedure compared to the wildcard and simultaneous lineup procedures. Remaining comparisons between lineup procedures found no significant differences. Also diagnosticity ratios were similar across the four procedures.     

Predictors of eyewitness identification decisions from video lineups in England: A field study

Eyewitness identification decisions from 1,039 real lineups in England were analysed. Identification procedures have undergone dramatic change in the United Kingdom over recent years. Video lineups are now standard procedure, in which each lineup member is seen sequentially. The whole lineup is seen twice before the witness can make a decision, and the witness can request additional viewings of the lineup. A key aim of this paper was to investigate the association between repeated viewing and eyewitness decisions. Repeated viewing was strongly associated with increased filler identification rates, suggesting that witnesses who requested additional viewings were more willing to guess. In addition, several other factors were associated with lineup outcomes, including the age difference between the suspect and the witness, the type of crime committed, and delay. Overall, the suspect identification rate was 39%, the filler identification rate was 26% and the lineup rejection rate was 35%. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved).     

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 NATIONAL SURVEY OF US POLICE ON PREPARATION AND CONDUCT OF IDENTIFICATION LINEUPS

A great deal of research has been aimed at identifying the factors that produce errors in eyewitness identification. However, most of this work has been conducted in laboratory environments using undergraduates and naive lay persons as research participants. Little information is available on what police officers do in the course of their identification activities. The present research investigated the procedures that police officers report employing when constructing and administering eyewitness identification lineups. We developed a survey that addresses a number of these issues, including experience, sources of lineup foils, lineup formation and display, lineup fairness evaluation, presence of suspect's attorney, witness instructions, historical records, and legal challenges. Surveys were sent to 500 US police jurisdictions; 220 were returned. Several survey items showed results consistent with previous laboratory research, however police officers reported using some procedures that are different from those established as most effective in the research literature. This paper summarizes the results of our survey and discusses the implications for future research and forensic procedures.     

Eyewitness Accuracy Rates in Sequential and Simultaneous Lineup Presentations: A Meta-Analytic Comparison

Most police lineups use a simultaneous presentation technique in which eyewitnesses view all lineup members at the same time. Lindsay and Wells (R. C. L. Lindsay & G. L. Wells, 1985) devised an alternative procedure, the sequential lineup, in which witnesses view one lineup member at a time and decide whether or not that person is the perpetrator prior to viewing the next lineup member. The present work uses the technique of meta-analysis to compare the accuracy rates of these presentation styles. Twenty-three papers were located (9 published and 14 unpublished), providing 30 tests of the hypothesis and including 4,145 participants. Results showed that identification of perpetrators from target-present lineups occurs at a higher rate from simultaneous than from sequential lineups. However, this difference largely disappears when moderator variables approximating real world conditions are considered. Also, correct rejection rates were significantly higher for sequential than simultaneous lineups and this difference is maintained or increased by greater approximation to real world conditions. Implications of these findings are discussed.     

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).     

What We Know Now: The Evanston Illinois Field Lineups

A Freedom of Information Act lawsuit secured 100 eyewitness identification reports from Evanston, Illinois, one of three cities of the Illinois Pilot Program. The files provide empirical evidence regarding three methodological aspects of the Program’s comparison of non-blind simultaneous to double-blind sequential lineups. (1) A-priori differences existed between lineup conditions. For example, the simultaneous non-blind lineup condition was more likely to involve witnesses who had already identified the suspect in a previous lineup or who knew the offender (non-stranger identifications), and this condition also entailed shorter delays between event and lineup. (2) Verbatim eyewitness comments were recorded more often in double-blind sequential than in non-blind simultaneous lineup reports (83% vs. 39%). (3) Effective lineup structure was used equally in the two lineup conditions.     

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.     

Distinguishing accurate from inaccurate eyewitness identifications with an optional deadline procedure

Abstract

Two experiments examined the efficacy of an optional deadline lineup procedure for distinguishing correct from incorrect eyewitness identification decisions. The procedure involved briefly presenting the lineup, removing the lineup from view, then giving participants the option of either making an identification decision or viewing the lineup again. When compared with participants operating under a forced deadline (i.e. forced to respond after the brief presentation) or standard lineup instructions, the optional deadline procedure identified participants with an impressive probability of having made a correct identification when used with target-present lineups and biased instructions. With unbiased instructions, the optional deadline produced clear discrimination between correct and incorrect identification decisions for choosers and, importantly, also for non-choosers. Possible strategies for improving the efficacy of the procedure are suggested.     

Children's and adults' eyewitness identification accuracy when a culprit changes his appearance: Comparing simultaneous and elimination lineup procedures

Adults' (N = 239) and children's (N = 177, age range 8–13 years) identification abilities were examined when a culprit underwent a change in appearance following the commission of a crime. Simultaneous and elimination lineup procedures were compared to determine the reliability of each under ‘change in appearance’ conditions. Participants viewed a staged, videotaped theft and then examined a target‐present or ‐absent lineup. Correct identifications (target‐present lineups) decreased following a change in appearance regardless of age of witness and lineup procedure. Children's correct rejection rates (target‐absent lineups) were lower than those of adults. The elimination procedure compared with the simultaneous procedure was more effective at increasing correct rejections when the lineup members matched the culprit's appearance for children and adults. When lineup members did not match the culprit's appearance, correct rejection rates were similar across the two identification procedures for both aged groups.