Simultaneous and sequential lineups: decision processes of accurate and inaccurate eyewitnesses

Abstract

The cognitive processes and decision-making strategies of eyewitnesses were tested for their predictive qualities in determining the accuracy of identi®cations from lineups. The sequential lineup presentation was compared with the traditionally employed simultaneous lineup under culprit (target) present and culprit absent conditions. Consistent with previous research the sequential presentation resulted in an equivalent number of correct identi®cations compared to the simultaneous lineup but reduced false identi®cation rates. Although sequential lineups were found to be associated with the use of absolute strategies, those shown a simultaneous lineup reported the use of both relative and absolute strategies. Accurate identi®cations and rejections were found to be associated with the use of absolute strategies, irrespective of lineup presentation or presence of target. Also accurate identi®cations, at least with a sequential lineup, were generally made faster than inaccurate identi®cations. These results are compared to previous studies with respect to the effect that mode of processing (relative versus absolute judgements) has on a witness's decision making and identi®cation accuracy.

The Mystery Man Can Help Reduce False Identification for Child Witnesses: Evidence from Video Line‐ups

“…Once they have identified someone, they cannot see that person again. Although the sequential line-up procedure has been found to reduce false identifications made from TA line-ups for adult witnesses (Kneller, Memon, & Stevenage, 2001;Sporer, 1993), it has not been found to reduce false identifications made by children Parker & Ryan, 1993;Pozzulo & Lindsay, 1998).…”

Are children less reliable at making visual identifications than adults? A review

“…The lineup stops when the witness identifies someone, or they have seen each lineup member, once they have identified someone they cannot see that person again. Although the sequential lineup procedure has been found to reduce false identifications made from TA lineups for adult witnesses (Kneller, Memon, & Stevenage, 2001;Sporer, 1993), it has not been found to reduce false identifications made by children from target absent lineups Parker & Ryan, 1993;Pozzulo & Lindsay, 1998). Lindsey et al (1997) suggest that the reason that sequential lineups are not effective for reducing false identifications for children is that, children are more likely to guess, and that they have a bias to choose, or are unable to resist the social demand to choose from the lineup.…”

Faces in Motion: Age‐Related Changes in Eyewitness Identification Performance in Simultaneous, Sequential, and Elimination Video Lineups

“…The two most common of these are the simultaneous lineup (i.e., all lineup members are presented at once) and the sequential lineup (i.e., lineup members are presented serially) (for reviews see, Clark & Godfrey, 2009;Steblay, Dysart, Fulero, & Lindsay, 2001;Steblay, Dysart, & Wells, 2011). The sequential lineup has typically been shown to reduce adult witnesses false identification rates without affecting correct identification rates compared to a simultaneous lineup (e.g., Cutler & Penrod, 1988;Kneller, Memon & Stevenage, 2001;Lindsay & Bellinger, 1999;Lindsay, Lea, & Fulford, 1991a;Lindsay, Lea, Nosworthy, Fulford, Hector, LeVan & Seabrook, 1991b;MacLin, Zimmerman & Malpass, 2005;Sporer, 1993). There is some evidence however, that the decrease in adult's false identifications in sequential lineups is associated with a reduction in correct suspect identifications (Clark & Godfrey, 2009;Steblay, et al, 200;Steblay et al, 2011).…”