Sequential lineup presentation: Technique matters.

Lindsay, R. C. L.; Lea, James A.; Fulford, Jennifer A.

doi:10.1037/0021-9010.76.5.741

Cited by 122 publications

(150 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

138

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Once the witness has seen all the images twice they are asked if they want to see all or any of the images again, before being asked to make an identification decision (Police and Criminal Evidence Act Code D, 2011). A field study of real eyewitness decisions, found that 47% of witnesses asked for an additional viewing of one or more lineup members after the second lineup viewing, and they were more likely to choose a known innocent from the lineup (38% versus 16%) as compared to those who did not ask for an additional viewing (Horry, Memon, Wright & Milne, 2012 8 Laboratory research that has investigated the effect of repeated lineup viewing has also found that when participants ask for repeated views, they were more likely to make false identifications (Duckworth & Kreiner, 2009;Havard & Memon, 2013, Lindsay, Lea & Fulford 1991MacLin & Phelan, 2007;Steblay, 2011). Steblay (2011) suggest that repeated viewing of a lineup indicates a weaker memory trace of the target, and that the witness needs to see the lineup again to confirm their initial decision.…”

Section: Additional Lineup Viewingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Mystery Man Can Increase the Reliability of Eyewitness Identifications for Older Adult Witnesses

Havard

Laybourn

Klecha

2016

J Police Crim Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Some groups of eyewitnesses, such as older adults and children, are less likely to correctly reject a target absent (TA) lineup, as compared to younger adults. Previous research reports that using a silhouette in a video lineup called 'the mystery man' could increase correct rejections for TA lineups for child eyewitnesses, without reducing correct identifications for target present (TP) lineups (Havard & Memon, 2013). The current study, using older and younger adults, investigated whether using the mystery man would also increase the identification accuracy for older adults, without impairing younger adults' identification accuracy. The results found that older adults in the 'mystery man' condition, rejected TA line-ups significantly more often than those in the control condition (52% vs. 24%), with no significant effect upon the TP lineups. For the younger adults', the mystery man had no influence on identification responses for the TA or TP line-ups. Our findings suggest the 'mystery man' technique may be beneficial for older adults, without detrimentally affecting the accuracy for younger adults, and thus could increase the reliability of eyewitness evidence, where video lineups are employed.

show abstract

Section: Additional Lineup Viewingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Mystery Man Can Increase the Reliability of Eyewitness Identifications for Older Adult Witnesses

Havard

Laybourn

Klecha

2016

J Police Crim Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Lindsay, Lea, and Fulford (1991) and Horry et al (2012) found correct rejections (but not correct identifications) were lower when participants were aware of how many members comprised their sequential lineup. A participant who rejected a sequential lineup in a multiple-trial experiment would discover how many lineup members comprised the lineups, which could lead them to adopt a more lenient criterion for identification as they approached the end of subsequent lineups.…”

Section: Possible Interactions With Multiple Trialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are multiple-trial experiments appropriate for eyewitness identification studies? Accuracy, choosing, and confidence across trials

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Eyewitness identification experiments typically involve a single trial: A participant views an event and subsequently makes a lineup decision. As compared to this singletrial paradigm, multiple-trial designs are more efficient, but significantly reduce ecological validity and may affect the strategies that participants use to make lineup decisions. We examined the effects of a number of forensically relevant variables (i.e., memory strength, type of disguise, degree of disguise, and lineup type) on eyewitness accuracy, choosing, and confidence across 12 target-present and 12 target-absent lineup trials (N = 349; 8,376 lineup decisions). The rates of correct rejections and choosing (across both target-present and target-absent lineups) did not vary across the 24 trials, as reflected by main effects or interactions with trial number. Trial number had a significant but trivial quadratic effect on correct identifications (OR = 0.99) and interacted significantly, but again trivially, with disguise type (OR = 1.00). Trial number did not significantly influence participants' confidence in correct identifications, confidence in correct rejections, or confidence in target-absent selections. Thus, multiple-trial designs appear to have minimal effects on eyewitness accuracy, choosing, and confidence. Researchers should thus consider using multiple-trial designs for conducting eyewitness identification experiments. Keywords Eyewitness identification . Simultaneous and sequential lineups . Multiple trials . Multilevel modelling . Eyewitness confidenceEyewitness identification research has contributed significantly to judicial and policing practices over the past few decades and this momentum continues (Innocence Project, n.d.; State v. Henderson, 2011; Technical Working Group for Eyewitness Evidence, 1999; National Research Council, 2014). A major challenge to eyewitness researchers is the balance between ecological validity and methodological rigor: Researchers must decide which aspects of their experimental design are critical for internal validity and which ought to closely resemble those encountered by real-world eyewitnesses to ensure external validity. In the real world, eyewitnesses typically see one crime and (may) participate in an identification procedure for a suspect. Translated into an experimental design, a participant is assigned to one experimental condition and views one mock crime and an accompanying lineup. This between-subjects design has the advantage of closely mirroring the real eyewitness experience but the disadvantage of producing only one recognition and one confidence data point per participant (cf. Brewer, Weber, Clark, & Wells, 2008).Researchers obtaining a single data point per participant (per measure) require a large number of participants to obtain sufficient power to detect reliable differences. Concerns about power are heightened when the measure of interest is Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.3758/s13428-017-0855-0) contains suppleme...

show abstract

“…After the initial survey, for example, new studies were conducted on such topics as child witnesses (Ceci & Brack, 1995;Poole & Lamb, 1998), repressed and/or false memories of trauma (Loftus, 1993;Pezdek & Banks, 1996;Read & Lindsay, 1997), the effects of alcohol (Yuille & Tollestrup, 1990), the processes by which eyewitnesses make identifications (Dunning & Stern, 1994;Sporer, 1993), sequential versus simultaneous presentations of photographic arrays and lineups (R. C. L. Lindsay, Lea, & Fulford, 1991;Wells, 1993), the malleability of confidence and other retrospective reports of the eyewitnessing experience (Luus & Wells, 1994;Shaw, 1996;Wells & Bradfield, 1998, 1999, factors that moderate the correlation of accuracy and confidence (Kassin, Rigby, & Castillo, 1991;D. S. Lindsay, Read, & Sharma, 1999;Robinson & Johnson, 1999;Sporer, Penrod, Read, & Cutler, 1995), and the commonsense assumptions about eyewitnesses held by laypersons and members of the legal profession (Devenport, Penrod, & Cutler, 1997;Kassin & Barndollar, 1992;Stinson, Devenport, Cutler, & Kravitz, 1996.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

On the "general acceptance" of eyewitness testimony research: A new survey of the experts.

Kassin¹,

Tubb²,

Hosch³

et al. 2001

American Psychologist

321

412

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In light of recent advances, this study updated a prior survey of eyewitness experts (S. M. Kassin, P. C. Ellsworth, & V. L. Smith, 1989). Sixty-four psychologists were asked about their courtroom experiences and opinions on 30 eyewitness phenomena. By an agreement rate of at least 80%, there was a strong consensus that the following phenomena are sufficiently reliable to present in court: the wording of questions, lineup instructions, confidence malleability, mug-shot-induced bias, postevent information, child witness suggestibility, attitudes and expectations, hypnotic suggestibility, alcoholic intoxication, the crossrace bias, weapon focus, the accuracy-confidence correlation, the forgetting curve, exposure time, presentation format, and unconscious transference. Results also indicate that these experts set high standards before agreeing to testify. Despite limitations, these results should help to shape expert testimony so that it more accurately represents opinions in the scientific community.

show abstract

Sequential lineup presentation: Technique matters.

Cited by 122 publications

References 12 publications

The Mystery Man Can Increase the Reliability of Eyewitness Identifications for Older Adult Witnesses

The Mystery Man Can Increase the Reliability of Eyewitness Identifications for Older Adult Witnesses

Are multiple-trial experiments appropriate for eyewitness identification studies? Accuracy, choosing, and confidence across trials

On the "general acceptance" of eyewitness testimony research: A new survey of the experts.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About