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.

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 practices 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.Recently, there has been an upsurge in research issues related to the child witness (e.g., Ceci, Toglia, & Ross, 1987;Perry & Wrightsman, 1991;Spencer & Flin, 1991). Studies have focused on the basic memory capacity as well as the suggestibility and motivation of the child witness. Most studies investigating the eyewitness identification capabilities of children have shown that children above 6 years of age perform as well as adults in the number of correct identifications (e.g.,

Children who experienced a highly stressful natural disaster, Hurricane Andrew, were interviewed within a few months of the event, when they were 3-4 years old, and again 6 years later, when they were 9-10 years old. Children were grouped into low, moderate, or high stress groups depending on the severity of the experienced storm. All children were able to recall this event in vivid detail 6 years later. In fact, children reported over twice as many propositions at the second interview as at the first. At the initial interview, children in the high stress group reported less information than children in the moderate stress group, but 6 years later, children in all three stress groups reported similar amounts of information. However children in the high stress group needed more questions and prompts than children in the other stress groups. Yet children in the high stress group also reported more consistent information between the two interviews, especially about the storm, than children in the other stress groups. Implications for children's developing memory of stressful events are discussed.

The effects of age of witness and age of suspect on eyewitness testimony were investigated. Fortyeight elementary school children and 48 college students viewed a slide sequence of a mock crime. This was followed by target-present or target-absent photo identification with a no-choice option, central and peripheral questions related to the crime, and a second photo identification. In photo identification, child witnesses had a higher rate of choosing than adult witnesses, suggesting that children have more lax criteria of responding. The accuracy data showed similar levels of sensitivity across ages although there was a trend toward reduced accuracy of child witnesses in target-absent lineups. All witnesses made more total choices and more correct rejections with child-suspect lineups than adult-suspect lineups. Central questions were answered better than peripheral questions by both age groups, but adults made significantly more '~ know" choices.

This issue completes Volume 4 and contains the author index to the volume.