Individual differences in eyewitness identification accuracy between sequential and simultaneous line-ups: consequences for police practice and jury decisions

Abstract

backgroundAlthough previous research has indicated that sequential line-up procedures result in fewer mistaken identifications, this was found to be at the expense of accurate identifications more typical within simultaneous procedures. Hence, there remains a lack of agreement about which procedure is superior, and the interaction such procedures have with eyewitness confidence. The interaction between witness demographics and identification accuracy also remains unclear. participants and procedureThe opportunistic sample, consisting of 60 people from the general population, was divided randomly into two experimental conditions: simultaneous (SIM) and sequential (SEQ). Participants in the sequential procedure observed 12 photographs, one at a time, deciding if they believed the suspect to be the person shown in the current photograph and unable to return to a given picture once they decided the individual shown was not the suspect described. Participants in the simultaneous condition were shown all 12 photographs concurrently and asked to determine which, if any, of the photographs was the suspect described.results No significant differences were found in identification accuracy between line-up procedures, but significant differences in confidence levels between the two line-up procedures were found. Additionally, analysis of demographic features showed previous line-up experience to be significantly associated with identification accuracy. conclusionsThe present research provides new insight into the interaction of eyewitness confidence between line-up techniques, offering an alternative explanation of witness confidence as well as procedural fairness. Evidence of practice effects increasing the accuracy of identification provides beneficial future implications for police line-up procedures and safer jury decisions, often reliant on identification evidence.key words sequential-superiority effect; mock witness paradigm; confidence-accuracy relationship corresponding author -Dominic Willmott,

Intelligence, Authority and Blame Conformity: Co-witness Influence Is Moderated by the Perceived Competence of the Information Source

“…The current literature surrounding eyewitness behaviour is extensive and continuously expanding with insightful and novel findings (e.g. McWilliam and Mojtahedi 2018; Willmott and Sherretts 2016). The present study contributed to this field of research by attempting to identify whether eyewitnesses would use available information about their cowitnesses to gauge the validity of their statements.…”

The missing link in training to detect deception and its implications for justice

“…Generalising research from one gender to the other may lead to training programs developed that are only of actual value when applied to males. With recent research in witness identification accuracy displaying the evidential value of prior training (Willmott and Sherretts, 2016), future research should seek to further explore the role of individual differences within the target, central to detecting deception research.…”

Gender Effects Regarding Eyewitness Identification Performance

“…Even though some of the above studies have found gender differences and offered various explanations for this, other researchers did not obtain any such findings (e.g., Butts et al, 1995;Wells & Olson, 2003;Willmott & Sherretts, 2016). Therefore, it is evident that there is considerable inconsistency in previous research.…”

“…These conditions can be considered as a limitation of this study because of real-life eyewitnesses observe crimes in different environments and conditions. (Willmott & Sherretts, 2016).…”