Applying applied research: selling the sequential line-up

Lindsay, R. C. L.

doi:10.1002/(sici)1099-0720(199906)13:3<219::aid-acp562>3.0.co;2-h

Cited by 35 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This is potentially problematic for those promoting the sequential administration of lineups (Lindsay, 1999); however, it should be noted that even with the second pass, performance was never worse than that found in simultaneous administration. Also, this is of course only one study examining lineup performance using a second pass.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

PC_Eyewitness: Evaluating the New Jersey method

MacLin

Phelan

2007

Behavior Research Methods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

PC_Eyewitness: Evaluating the New Jersey method

MacLin

Phelan

2007

Behavior Research Methods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The sequential lineup has been a much heralded innovation in eyewitness identification methods; indeed, it has been argued that law enforcement should adopt such a procedure for everyday investigative practice (Levi & Lindsay, 2001;Lindsay, 1999). However, we are just beginning to understand the cognitive processes governing such decisions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A much heralded procedural innovation in eyewitness identification was suggested by Lindsay and Wells (1985) and subsequently investigated by Lindsay and colleagues in more than a dozen studies (see Lindsay, 1999). These researchers proposed that the lineup procedure typically used by law enforcement, in which all photographs are presented to the witness at the same time in a simultaneous format, may lead to increased false positive choices as a result of a particular face's being selected on the basis of that individual's familiarity relative to that of others in the lineup.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Eyewitness decisions in simultaneous and sequential lineups: A dual-process signal detection theory analysis

et al. 2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many eyewitness researchers have argued for the application of a sequential alternative to the traditional simultaneous lineup, given its role in decreasing false identifications of innocent suspects (sequential superiority effect). However, Ebbesen and Flowe (2002) have recently noted that sequential lineups may merely bring about a shift in response criterion, having no effect on discrimination accuracy. We explored this claim, using a method that allows signal detection theory measures to be collected from eyewitnesses. In three experiments, lineup type was factorially combined with conditions expected to influence response criterion and/or discrimination accuracy. Results were consistent with signal detection theory predictions, including that of a conservative criterion shift with the sequential presentation of lineups. In a fourth experiment, we explored the phenomenological basis for the criterion shift, using the remember-know-guess procedure. In accord with previous research, the criterion shift in sequential lineups was associated with a reduction in familiarity-based responding. It is proposed that the relative similarity between lineup members may create a context in which fluency-based processing is facilitated to a greater extent when lineup members are presented simultaneously.

show abstract

“…This paper raises an important practical question about the trade off between loss of guilty verdicts (reductions in hit rate) and conviction of the innocent (reduction in all choices to prevent false identifications). The sequential procedure has been advocated as an effective way of reducing identifications of innocent suspects (Lindsay, 1999;Wells et al, 1998) without due consideration as to the possible reduction in correct identifications of guilty parties. If future research continues to observe this simultaneous-sequential effect on correct identifications, then policy makers must consider the implications of implementing an identification procedure that serves to increase the exoneration of innocent, and guilty, individuals.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Unravelling the effects of sequential presentation in culprit‐present lineups

Memon

Gabbert

2003

Applied Cognitive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is well established that sequential presentation of faces in an eyewitness situation can reduce false identification rates. The effect of a sequential presentation on the probability of accurately identifying a culprit when present in a lineup is less clear. The current study examined the efficacy of the sequential procedure in culprit present lineups approximating the real life condition where a person's appearance has changed between the time they were seen and the identification. Young (17-33 years) and older (58-80 years) witnesses viewed a video of a crime and then engaged in some filler tasks. Later they viewed a culprit-present lineup presented in a simultaneous or sequential format. Some witnesses viewed lineups in which target appearance (hairstyle) had changed and some where it had not. Sequential testing was associated with fewer choices (hits and foil choices) as compared to simultaneous testing. A change of appearance lowered hit rates in sequential test conditions among young adults. Finally, participants in sequential conditions were more likely to report that they expected the target to be present in the lineup. We advise policy makers not to advocate sequential testing until we have a full understanding of the conditions under which the sequential-superiority effect may be observed.

show abstract

Applying applied research: selling the sequential line-up

Cited by 35 publications

References 9 publications

PC_Eyewitness: Evaluating the New Jersey method

PC_Eyewitness: Evaluating the New Jersey method

Eyewitness decisions in simultaneous and sequential lineups: A dual-process signal detection theory analysis

Unravelling the effects of sequential presentation in culprit‐present lineups

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About