Making sense of sequential lineups: An experimental and theoretical analysis of position effects

Wilson, Brent M.; Donnelly, Kristin; Christenfeld, Nicholas; Wixted, John T.

doi:10.1016/j.jml.2018.10.002

Cited by 25 publications

(136 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Constraining the models so that s t = s s = 1 did not significantly worsen the fit for SDT-MAX, χ 2 (1) = .28, p = .60, or SDT-SEQ, χ 2 (1) = .61, p = .43. This indicates that equal-variance models adequately capture these data, in contrast to long-standing findings of unequal target and lure distribution variance reported in the literature on basic recognition memory (Egan, 1958;Mickes et al, 2007) and in recent lineup research (Wilson et al, 2019;.…”

Section: Underlying Discriminabilitycontrasting

confidence: 62%

“…On the other hand, it is possible that sequential presentation may induce retroactive interference through re-encoding of lineup items into memory. This would be expected to have a greater impact on items appearing later in the sequence which is suggested by the finding reported by Wilson et al (2019) that underlying discriminability may increase over the course of the sequential lineup, at least after position 1. The point is that because the two procedures have different characteristics, it is likely they induce a range of effects on memory which, in the cases we have so far examined, more or less cancel out.…”

Section: Diagnostic Feature Detection Theorymentioning

confidence: 90%

“…Variations of this procedure have also been proposed, which do not enforce the immediate stopping rule. These alternatives may permit witnesses to see remaining lineup members after an identification is made (Wilson, Donnelly, Christenfeld, & Wixted, 2019), require witnesses to view all lineup members before making an identification, or allow (or require) witnesses to lap through the procedure a second time (Horry, Brewer, Weber, & Palmer, 2015; Seale-Carlisle, Wetmore, Flowe, & Mickes, 2019). Lindsay and Wells (1985) originally proposed the sequential lineup based on a theoretical distinction between absolute and relative judgement strategies (Wells, 1984).…”

Section: The Sequential Lineupmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Do sequential lineups impair underlying discriminability?

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Debate regarding the best way to test and measure eyewitness memory has dominated the eyewitness literature for more than 30 years. We argue that resolution of this debate requires the development and application of appropriate measurement models. In this study we developed models of simultaneous and sequential lineup presentations and used these to compare these procedures in terms of underlying discriminability and response bias, thereby testing a key prediction of diagnostic feature detection theory, that underlying discriminability should be greater for simultaneous than for stopping-rule sequential lineups. We fit the models to the corpus of studies originally described by Palmer and Brewer (2012, Law and Human Behavior, 36(3), 247-255), to data from a new experiment and to eight recent studies comparing simultaneous and sequential lineups. We found that although responses tended to be more conservative for sequential lineups there was little or no difference in underlying discriminability between the two procedures. We discuss the implications of these results for the diagnostic feature detection theory and other kinds of sequential lineups used in current jurisdictions.

show abstract

Section: Underlying Discriminabilitycontrasting

confidence: 62%

Section: Diagnostic Feature Detection Theorymentioning

confidence: 90%

Section: The Sequential Lineupmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Do sequential lineups impair underlying discriminability?

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Sometimes the results of an ROC analysis based on an atheoretical measure like pAUC do not agree with the results based on a theoretical measure like d' obtained by fitting a theoretical model to the same data (e.g., Kaesler et al, 2020;Rotello & Chen, 2016;Wilson et al, 2019). Therefore, we fit a signal-detection model to our data, which confirmed our pAUC findings.…”

Section: Signal Detection Modelsupporting

confidence: 49%

Active exploration of faces in police lineups increases discrimination accuracy

Colloff¹,

Flowe²,

Smith³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Eyewitness identifications play a key role in the justice system, but eyewitnesses make errors, often with profound consequences. Errors are more likely when the witness is of a different race to the suspect, due to a phenomenon called the Own Race Bias (ORB). ORB is characterized as an encoding-based deficit, but has been predominantly tested using static photographs of people facing the camera. We used findings from basic science and innovative technologies to develop and test whether a novel interactive lineup procedure, wherein witnesses can rotate and dynamically view the lineup faces from different angles, improves witness discrimination accuracy and attenuates the ORB, compared to the most widely used procedure in laboratories and police forces around the world—the static frontal-pose photo lineup. No novel procedure has previously been shown to improve witness discrimination accuracy. In Experiment 1, participants (N=220) identified own-race or other-race culprits from sequentially presented interactive lineups or static frontal-pose photo lineups. In Experiment 2, participants (N=8,507) identified own-race or other-race culprits from interactive lineups that were either presented sequentially, simultaneously wherein the faces could be moved independently, or simultaneously wherein the faces moved jointly into the same angle. Interactive lineups enhanced witnesses’ discriminability compared to static lineups, especially when they were presented simultaneously, for both own-race and other-race identifications. Our findings suggest that ORB is an encoding-based phenomenon, and exemplify how basic science can be used to address the important applied policy issue on how best to conduct a police lineup and reduce eyewitness errors.

show abstract

“…Several studies have reported position effects in sequential lineups, wherein the likelihood of a suspect being identified changes depending on where within the sequence he is placed (e.g., Carlson, Gronlund, & Clark, 2008;Clark & Davey, 2005;Horry et al, 2012;Meisters et al, 2018;Wilson, Donnelly, Christenfeld, & Wixted, 2019), although the extant literature varies in terms of whether effects are found with target-present and/or target-absent lineups, or neither (e.g., Dobolyi & Dodson, 2013;Flowe et al, 2016;Kneller, Memon, & Stevenage, 2001;Lindsay & Wells, 1985;Wells et al, 2011;Sporer, 1993). One explanation for such position effects is that the eyewitness's decision criterion may become increasingly liberal as the lineup progresses and the eyewitness begins to feel that she is running out of opportunities to make a positive identification (i.e., a dynamic-conservative shift; Goodsell, Gronlund, & Carlson, 2010;Horry et al, 2012;Meisters et al, 2018; see also Smith, Wells, Lindsay, & Myerson, 2018).…”

Section: Suspect Position Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“Only your first yes will count”: The impact of pre-lineup instructions on sequential lineup decisions

Horry¹,

Fitzgerald²,

Mansour³

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When administering sequential lineups, researchers often inform their participants that only their first yes response will count. This instruction differs from the original sequential lineup protocol and from how sequential lineups are conducted in practice. Participants (N = 896) viewed a videotaped mock crime and viewed a simultaneous lineup, a sequential lineup with a first-yes-counts instruction, or a sequential control lineup (with no first-yes-counts instruction); the lineup was either target-present or target-absent. Participants in the first-yes-counts condition were less likely to identify the suspect and more likely to reject the lineup than participants in the simultaneous and sequential control conditions, suggesting a conservative criterion shift. The diagnostic value of suspect identifications, as measured by partial Area Under the Curve, was lower in the first-yes-counts lineup than in the simultaneous lineup. Results were qualitatively similar for other metrics of diagnosticity, though the differences were not statistically significant. Differences between the simultaneous and sequential control lineups were negligible on all outcomes. The first-yes-counts instruction undermines sequential lineup performance and produces an artefactual simultaneous lineup advantage. Researchers should adhere to sequential lineup protocols that maximize diagnosticity and that would feasibly be implemented in practice, allowing them to draw more generalizable conclusions from their data.

show abstract

Making sense of sequential lineups: An experimental and theoretical analysis of position effects

Cited by 25 publications

References 23 publications

Do sequential lineups impair underlying discriminability?

Do sequential lineups impair underlying discriminability?

Active exploration of faces in police lineups increases discrimination accuracy

“Only your first yes will count”: The impact of pre-lineup instructions on sequential lineup decisions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About