Unravelling the effects of sequential presentation in culprit‐present lineups

Abstract

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.

Sequential vs. Simultaneous Lineups: A Review of Methods, Data, and Theory.

“…Although the concept of relative judgment is theoretically and intuitively appealing and of considerable interest here, we believe that the way this construct has been tested in much of the literature does not provide a strong basis for concluding that eyewitnesses preferentially use this strategy when choosing from an SIML nor that they preferentially use an absolute judgment strategy when choosing from an SEQL. Because there is a set of variables that differentiates SIMLs and SEQLs, which have not been examined in this literature, as well as alternative theoretical explanations that remain underexplored, there are important questions about where the sequential superiority effect comes from and the specific conditions under which SEQLs are superior (for examples, see Gronlund, 2005;Meissner et al, 2005;Memon & Gabbert, 2003b).…”

Research note: evidence for moving to an 84-person photo lineup

“…However, in recent studies, when foils were chosen to fit the description of the target rather than their similarity to the suspect (Luus and Wells 1991), researchers (Levi 2006b;Memon and Bartlett 2002;Memon and Gabbert 2003) found that simultaneous lineups enabled more target identifications relative to sequential lineups.…”

Age and lineup type differences in the own-race bias

“…Consistent with this effect, the ORB also contributes to poorer discrimination accuracy and a more liberal response criterion than own-race faces (Meissner & Brigham, 2001;Meissner et al, 2005). Likewise, simultaneous lineups result in more overall selections (i.e., higher choosing rates, or a more liberal response criterion) compared to sequential lineups (e.g., Meissner et al, 2005;Memon & Bartlett, 2002;Memon & Gabbert, 2003a, 2003bPalmer & Brewer, 2012;see Steblay et al, 2011 for a review). In TP lineups, more overall selections equates to more hits (correct identifications), but in TA lineups more overall selections results in more false alarms (mistaken identifications; Steblay et al, 2011).…”