The single lineup paradigm: A new way to manipulate target presence in eyewitness identification experiments.

Oriet, Chris; Fitzgerald, Ryan J.

doi:10.1037/lhb0000272

Cited by 22 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 27 publications

(60 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…1). Thus, the false-alarm rate should not vary as a function of filler similarity, consistent with prior results (10,16). Because the hit rate should increase but the false-alarm rate should remain constant as filler similarity decreases, the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) should reflect an improved ability to discriminate innocent from guilty suspects (17).…”

Section: Significancesupporting

confidence: 75%

Optimizing the selection of fillers in police lineups

Colloff

Wilson

Seale-Carlisle

et al. 2021

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A typical police lineup contains a photo of one suspect (who is innocent in a target-absent lineup and guilty in a target-present lineup) plus photos of five or more fillers who are known to be innocent. To create a fair lineup in which the suspect does not stand out, two filler selection methods are commonly used. In the first, fillers are selected if they are similar in appearance to the suspect. In the second, fillers are selected if they possess facial features included in the witness’s description of the culprit (e.g., “20-y-old white male”). The police sometimes use a combination of the two methods by selecting description-matched fillers whose appearance is also similar to that of the suspect in the lineup. Decades of research on which approach is better remains unsettled. Here, we tested a counterintuitive prediction made by a formal model based on signal detection theory: From a pool of acceptable description-matched photos, selecting fillers whose appearance is otherwise dissimilar to the suspect should increase the hit rate without affecting the false-alarm rate (increasing discriminability). In Experiment 1, we confirmed this prediction using a standard mock-crime paradigm. In Experiment 2, the effect on discriminability was reversed (as also predicted by the model) when fillers were matched on similarity to the perpetrator in both target-present and target-absent lineups. These findings suggest that signal-detection theory offers a useful theoretical framework for understanding eyewitness identification decisions made from a police lineup.

show abstract

Section: Significancesupporting

confidence: 75%

Optimizing the selection of fillers in police lineups

Colloff

Wilson

Seale-Carlisle

et al. 2021

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In one of their two experiments they manipulated filler similarity relative to the suspect (i.e., using different fillers in target-present and -absent cases). Consistent with the original propositions of Luus and Wells (1991) and Wells et al (1993; see also Oriet & Fitzgerald, 2018)-that increasing filler similarity beyond matching to description risks affecting guilty but not innocent suspect identifications- Colloff et al (2021) reported a decrease in pAUC as filler similarity increased. They contrasted these results with a second experiment where filler similarity was manipulated relative to the target.…”

supporting

confidence: 76%

Could precise and replicable manipulations of suspect-filler similarity optimize eyewitness identification performance?

Lucas¹,

Brewer²

2022

Psychology, Public Policy, and Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The optimal level of suspect-filler similarity in police lineups remains undefined. Difficulties inherent in pinpointing precise and replicable variations in face similarity create challenges for examining the effects of suspect-filler similarity on identification outcomes and providing decisive lineup construction recommendations. We tested the relationship between suspect-filler similarity and identification outcomes using stimuli developed with a combination of face matching and morphing software that could potentially be used by police investigators to standardize lineup composition. A group of fillers selected to be as low in similarity to the suspect as possible, while still matching a basic perpetrator description, were morphed to the suspects. Participants viewed lineups in which the fillers were either unmorphed, a 33% morph, or a 50% morph to the suspect. Results showed a tendency for identification performance -including accuracy, discriminability between guilty and innocent suspects and the confidence-accuracy relationship-to suffer as similarity levels increased beyond matching a basic perpetrator description. Thus, despite the attraction of exploiting modern technology to standardize suspect-filler similarity relations, our findings across multiple sets of encoding and test materials broadly cohere with Wells and colleague's argument (Luus & Wells, 1991;Wells et al., 1993) that identification performance may be optimized when fillers are selected to be as low as possible in similarity to the suspect while still matching description. However, before unequivocally endorsing such a lineup construction approach, it is necessary to conduct a systematic examination of precisely what constitutes an adequate perpetrator description and how this might be consistently obtained.

show abstract

“…We used Oriet and Fitzgerald's (2018) We created eight versions of each lineup, in which we varied: i) the position of the suspect (position 2 or position 5); ii) the order of the fillers (order A-E or E-A); and iii) simultaneous or sequential presentation. For simultaneous lineups, the images were presented in a 2 × 3 array with a number from 1 to 6 beneath each image.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

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

The single lineup paradigm: A new way to manipulate target presence in eyewitness identification experiments.

Cited by 22 publications

References 27 publications

Optimizing the selection of fillers in police lineups

Optimizing the selection of fillers in police lineups

Could precise and replicable manipulations of suspect-filler similarity optimize eyewitness identification performance?

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About