NCJ Number
226389
Journal
Legal and Criminological Psychology Volume: 14 Issue: 1 Dated: February 2009 Pages: 13-24
Date Published
February 2009
Length
12 pages
Annotation
This article discusses simultaneous lineups relevant to the pattern of results found using sequential versus simultaneous lineups, reasons (theory) differences in witness responses, two methodological issues, and implications for policy decisions regarding the adoption of sequential lineups.
Abstract
Sequential lineups are superior to traditional simultaneous lineups because they reduce the rate of false positive choices and thus reduce the risk of mistaken identification and wrongful conviction. However, sequential lineups generally reduce correct identifications relative to simultaneous lineups. Possible reasons for this are reviewed and concluded that a quality of exposure explanation is more plausible than a counterbalancing explanation but neither has sufficient empirical support. Meta-analyzes and field studies both clearly indicate that eyewitness performance is far from perfect. A significant advantage of sequential lineups is that they produce a pattern of responding that resembles a conservative decision strategy even when the eyewitness is highly motivated to choose. The simultaneous lineup involves showing a witness an array of people or photos comprised of a suspect and known innocent (fillers). Lineup members are presented together (simultaneously). The sequential lineup was designed in 1985 to reduce reliance on relative judgments. Witnesses view each lineup member individually and decide, before seeing another lineup member, whether or not that person is the criminal. Once a decision is made, the witness is not allowed to view that lineup member again. With arguments made from previous research that witnesses make frequent errors from simultaneous lineups because they employ a ‘relative judgment strategy’, arguments have been made that sequential lineups reduce the rate of false positive choices. References