Biased lineups: Sequential presentation reduces the problem.

Lindsay, R. C. L.; Lea, James A.; Nosworthy, Glenn J.; Fulford, Jennifer A.; Hector, J Levesque; LeVan, Virginia; Seabrook, Carolyn

doi:10.1037/0021-9010.76.6.796

Cited by 128 publications

(179 citation statements)

References 15 publications

(29 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

165

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…lund, & Clark, 2008; R. C. L. Lindsay et al, 1991). Thus, we set out to answer the question of whether a sequential superiority effect would be observed according to ROC analysis when unfair lineups are used.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Receiver operating characteristic analysis of eyewitness memory: Comparing the diagnostic accuracy of simultaneous versus sequential lineups.

Mickes¹,

Flowe²,

Wixted³

2012

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied

187

349

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A police lineup presents a real-world signal-detection problem because there are two possible states of the world (the suspect is either innocent or guilty), some degree of information about the true state of the world is available (the eyewitness has some degree of memory for the perpetrator), and a decision is made (identifying the suspect or not). A similar state of affairs applies to diagnostic tests in medicine because, in a patient, the disease is either present or absent, a diagnostic test yields some degree of information about the true state of affairs, and a decision is made about the presence or absence of the disease. In medicine, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis is the standard method for assessing diagnostic accuracy. By contrast, in the eyewitness memory literature, this powerful technique has never been used. Instead, researchers have attempted to assess the diagnostic performance of different lineup procedures using methods that cannot identify the better procedure (e.g., by computing a diagnosticity ratio). Here, we describe the basics of ROC analysis, explaining why it is needed and showing how to use it to measure the performance of different lineup procedures. To illustrate the unique advantages of this technique, we also report 3 ROC experiments that were designed to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of simultaneous versus sequential lineups. According to our findings, the sequential procedure appears to be inferior to the simultaneous procedure in discriminating between the presence versus absence of a guilty suspect in a lineup.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Receiver operating characteristic analysis of eyewitness memory: Comparing the diagnostic accuracy of simultaneous versus sequential lineups.

Mickes¹,

Flowe²,

Wixted³

2012

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied

187

349

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In contrast, since participants tested with sequential lineups cannot directly compare the test faces because they are being presented one at a time, it has been theorized that witnesses have to rely more on an absolute decision strategy, wherein each test face is compared to the witness' memory representation of the culprit. Several studies (e.g., Cutler & Penrod, 1988;Lindsay, Lea, Nosworthy, & Fulford, 1991;Sporer, 1994;Wells, 1993) have been interpreted as being in line with predictions derived from Lindsay and Wells' (1985) relative versus absolute judgment theory (for a review, see Wells et al 1998). …”

Section: Target Discriminability and Criterion Placement 3 A Comparismentioning

confidence: 63%

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

Flowe

Bessemer

2011

Psychology, Crime & Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…psychologists have begun to recommend the use of the sequential lineup over the traditional simultaneous lineup as a means of reducing false identifications (e.g., Lindsay et al, 1991;Wells et al 1998). …”

Section: Simultaneous and Sequential Lineupsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Based on what we have learned from these studies, psychologists have called on the legal system to make procedural changes aimed at reducing the rate of mistaken identification (Wells et al, 1998). In particular,psychologists have begun to recommend the use of the sequential lineup over the traditional simultaneous lineup as a means of reducing false identifications (e.g., Lindsay et al, 1991;Wells et al 1998). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the current study, we expand on these findings by investigating whether surrounding the target (or the look-a-like) with foils that are high or low in Lineup Similarity Effects 7 similarity influences the rate at which the target is chosen. If the similarity of the foils influences criterion placement in simultaneous and sequential lineups, the target and the look-a-like should be chosen at a higher rate in both procedures if surrounded by low rather than high similarity foils.To our knowledge, only Lindsay et al (1991) has systematically varied lineup similarity along with lineup presentation procedure to examine their joint effect on accuracy. Participants were presented with lineups that had foils that were all similar or dissimilar to a confederate in a staged-crime experiment (experiment 3).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The effect of lineup member similarity on recognition accuracy in simultaneous and sequential lineups.

Flowe¹,

Ebbesen²

2007

Law and Human Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effect of lineup member similarity on recognition accuracy in simultaneous and sequential lineups. Lineup Member Similarity 1 AbstractTwo 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. Lineup Similarity Effects 2The Effect of Lineup Member Similarity on Recognition Accuracy in Simultaneous and Sequential LineupsMuch psychological research over the last 25 years has demonstrated the conditions under which eyewitnesses might be prone to making identification errors. Based on what we have learned from these studies, psychologists have called on the legal system to make procedural changes aimed at reducing the rate of mistaken identification (Wells et al., 1998). In particular,psychologists have begun to recommend the use of the sequential lineup over the traditional simultaneous lineup as a means of reducing false identifications (e.g., Lindsay et al., 1991;Wells et al. 1998).The sequential procedure differs from a simultaneous lineup in a number of respects. In a simultaneous lineup, witnesses are shown at once an array of faces, which includes the suspect along with persons known by the police to be innocent (foils). In a sequential lineup, the faces are viewed one at a time, and for each face the witness makes a yes/no decision. The next picture is displayed if the photo is rejected by the witness, and once a photo has been rejected, the witness is not allowed to see it again. The sequential lineup test continues until a face is positively identified as the culprit. Across laboratory studies, it has been shown that by switching to sequential lineups, identifications of both "guilty" and "innocent" suspects are reduced, though false identifications of suspects are reduced to a larger extent (see Steblay et al., 2001 for a meta-analytic comparison of simultaneous and sequential lineups).One explanation that has been proposed to account for the differences in accuracy observed between the two procedures is the relative-absolute judgment model (Wells et al., 1998).According to this model, positive identifications are higher in simultaneous lineups because witnesses can see all of the alternatives when making their identification decision, and as a Lineup Similarity Effects 3 result, are biased toward making a positive identification. Simultaneous witnesses will likely make a posi...

show abstract

Biased lineups: Sequential presentation reduces the problem.

Cited by 128 publications

References 15 publications

Receiver operating characteristic analysis of eyewitness memory: Comparing the diagnostic accuracy of simultaneous versus sequential lineups.

Receiver operating characteristic analysis of eyewitness memory: Comparing the diagnostic accuracy of simultaneous versus sequential lineups.

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

The effect of lineup member similarity on recognition accuracy in simultaneous and sequential lineups.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About