To improve police protocols for lineup procedures, it is helpful to understand the processes underlying eyewitness identification performance. The two-high threshold (2-HT) eyewitness identification model is a multinomial processing tree model that measures four latent cognitive processes on which eyewitness identification decisions are based: two detection-based processes (the detection of culprit presence and absence) and two non-detection-based processes (biased and guessing-based selection). The model takes into account the full 2 × 3 data structure of lineup procedures, that is, suspect identifications, filler identifications and rejections in both culprit-present and culprit-absent lineups. Here the model is introduced and the results of four large validation experiments are reported, one for each of the processes specified by the model. The validation experiments served to test whether the model’s parameters sensitively reflect manipulations of the processes they were designed to measure. The results show that manipulations of exposure duration of the culprit’s face at encoding, lineup fairness, pre-lineup instructions and ease of rejection of culprit-absent lineups were sensitively reflected in the parameters representing culprit-presence detection, biased suspect selection, guessing-based selection and culprit-absence detection, respectively. The results of the experiments thus validate the interpretations of the parameters of the 2-HT eyewitness identification model.

The two-high threshold (2-HT) eyewitness identification model serves as a new measurement tool to measure the latent cognitive processes underlying eyewitness identification performance. By simultaneously taking into account correct culprit identifications, false innocent-suspect identifications, false filler identifications in culprit-present and culprit-absent lineups as well as correct and false lineup rejections, the model capitalizes on the full range of data categories that are observed when measuring eyewitness identification performance. Thereby, the model is able to shed light on detection-based and non-detection-based processes underlying eyewitness identification performance. Specifically, the model incorporates parameters for the detection of culprit presence and absence, biased selection of the suspect and guessing-based selection among the lineup members. Here, we provide evidence of the validity of each of the four model parameters by applying the model to eight published data sets. The data sets come from studies with experimental manipulations that target one of the underlying processes specified by the model. Manipulations of encoding difficulty, lineup fairness and pre-lineup instructions were sensitively reflected in the parameters reflecting culprit-presence detection, biased selection and guessing-based selection, respectively. Manipulations designed to facilitate the rejection of culprit-absent lineups affected the parameter for culprit-absence detection. The reanalyses of published results thus suggest that the parameters sensitively reflect the manipulations of the processes they were designed to measure, providing support of the validity of the 2-HT eyewitness identification model.

The mock-witness task is typically used to evaluate the fairness of lineups. However, the validity of this task has been questioned because there are substantial differences between the tasks for mock witnesses and eyewitnesses. Unlike eyewitnesses, mock witnesses must select a person from the lineup and are alerted to the fact that one lineup member might stand out from the others. It therefore seems desirable to base conclusions about lineup fairness directly on eyewitness data rather than on mock-witness data. To test the importance of direct measurements of biased suspect selection in eyewitness identification decisions, we assessed the fairness of lineups containing either morphed or non-morphed fillers using both mock witnesses and eyewitnesses. We used Tredoux’s E and the proportion of suspect selections to measure lineup fairness from mock-witness choices and the two-high threshold eyewitness identification model to measure the biased selection of the suspects directly from eyewitness identification decisions. Results obtained in the mock-witness task and the model-based analysis of data obtained in the eyewitness task converged in showing that simultaneous lineups with morphed fillers were significantly more unfair than simultaneous lineups with non-morphed fillers. However, mock-witness and eyewitness data converged only when the eyewitness task mimicked the mock-witness task by including pre-lineup instructions that (1) discouraged eyewitnesses to reject the lineups and (2) alerted eyewitnesses that a photograph might stand out from the other photographs in the lineup. When a typical eyewitness task was created by removing these two features from the pre-lineup instructions, the morphed fillers no longer lead to unfair lineups. These findings highlight the differences in the cognitive processes of mock witnesses and eyewitnesses and they demonstrate the importance of measuring lineup fairness directly from eyewitness identification decisions rather than indirectly using the mock-witness task.

In eyewitness research, multiple identification decisions in sequential lineups are typically prevented by telling participants that only their first identification decision counts. These first-yes-counts instructions are incompatible with standard police protocols prescribing that witnesses shall see the entire lineup. Horry et al. were the first to experimentally test how this discrepancy between eyewitness research and standard police protocols affects eyewitness identification decisions. Here, the two-high threshold eyewitness identification model was used to disentangle the effect of the first-yes-counts instructions on the detection and guessing processes underlying eyewitness identification decisions. We report both a reanalysis of Horry et al.’s data and a conceptual replication. Both the reanalysis and the results of the conceptual replication confirm that first-yes-counts instructions do not affect the detection of the culprit but decrease the probability of guessing-based selections. To improve the ecological validity, research on sequential lineups should avoid first-yes-counts instructions.