Eyewitness accuracy rates in sequential and simultaneous lineup presentations: A meta-analytic comparison

Law and Human Behavior

Volumn 25, Issue 5, 2001, Pages 459-473

  Steblay, Nancy ^a   Dysart, Jennifer ^b   Fulero, Solomon ^c   Lindsay, R C L ^b  

^a AUGSBURG COLLEGE   (United States)

^b QUEEN S UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^c Sinclair College   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CRIMINAL LAW; DECISION MAKING; EPIDEMIOLOGY; EQUIPMENT; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; META ANALYSIS; METHODOLOGY; PHOTOGRAPHY; RECOGNITION; REPRODUCIBILITY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STANDARD; VIDEORECORDING;

BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); CRIMINAL LAW; DECISION MAKING; EFFECT MODIFIERS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); FEMALE; HUMANS; JUDGMENT; MALE; PHOTOGRAPHY; RECOGNITION (PSYCHOLOGY); REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RESEARCH DESIGN; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; VIDEOTAPE RECORDING;

EID: 0035487802     PISSN: 01477307     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1012888715007     Document Type: Review

References (38)

1. * Bellinger, K. (1997). Correct lineup rejections as a function of lineup presentation. Undergraduate thesis, Queen's University. Published as Lindsay & Bellinger, 1999.
2. * Blank, H., & Krahe, J. (2000). The influence of an outstanding similarity between two persons in a lineup on target identification in sequential and simultaneous lineups. Unpublished manuscript, University of Leipzig, Germany.
3. Clifford, B. R., & Hollin, C. R. (1983). Effects of the type of incident and the number of perpetrators on eyewitness memory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 364-370.
4. * Corber, S. K. (1995). Identification procedure: Implications for preschoolers' eyewitness identification accuracy. Queen's University. Published as Lindsay, Pozzulo, Craig, Lee, & Corber, 1997.
5. * Cutler, B. L., & Penrod, S. D. (1988). Improving the reliability of eyewitness identification: Lineup construction and presentation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(2), 281-290.
6. * Dormer, G. (1983). Effect of absolute judgmental processes on eyewitness identification accuracy. Unpublished undergraduate thesis, Queen's University.
7. * Hannaford, K. M. (1985). Relative versus absolute judgments in lineup identifications. Unpublished undergraduate thesis, Queen's University.
8. * Jacob, P. (1994). The feasibility of using multiple perpetrator sequential lineups. BA Honors thesis, Queen's University.
9. Kassin, S. M., Tubb, V. A., Hosch, H. M., & Memon, A. (2001). On the general acceptance of eyewitness testimony research: A new survey of the experts. American Psychologist, 56, 405-416.
10. * Kneller, W., & Memon, A. (2000). Decision processes of accurate and inaccurate eyewitnesses. Paper presented at the American Psychology-Law Biennial Conference, New Orleans, LA.
11. * Laldin, S. (1997). Contextual effects on lineup identification of multiple perpetrators. Unpublished undergraduate thesis, Queen's University.
12. Lindsay, R. C. L., & Bellinger, K. (1999). Alternatives to the sequential lineup: The importance of controlling the pictures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 315-321.
13. * Lindsay, R. C. L., Lea, J. A., & Fulford, J. A. (1991). Sequential lineup presentation: Technique matters. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(5), 741-745.
14. * Lindsay, R. C. L., Lea, J. A., Nosworthy, G. J., Fulford, J. A., Hector, J., LeVan, V., & Seabrook, C. (1991). Biased lineups: Sequential presentation reduces the problem. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(6), 796-802.
15. * Lindsay, R. C. L., Martin, R., & Webber, L. (1994). Default values in eyewitness descriptions: A problem for the match-to-description lineup foil selection strategy. Law and Human Behavior, 18(5), 527-541.
16. * Lindsay, R. C. L., Pozzulo, J., Craig, W., Lee, K., & Corber, S. (1997). Simultaneous lineups, sequential lineups, and showups: Eyewitness identification decisions of adults and children. Law and Human Behavior, 21(4), 391-402.
17. * Lindsay, R. C. L., & Wells, G. L. (1985). Improving eyewitness identifications from lineups: Simultaneous versus sequential lineup presentation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70(3), 556-564.
18. Loftus, E. F., & Greene, E. (1980). Warning: Even memory for faces may be contagious. Law and Human Behavior, 4, 323-334.
19. * Martins, S. (1996). The effects of changes in the appearance and lineup position of targets on eyewitness identification. Unpublished undergraduate thesis, Queen's University.
20. Meissner, C., & Brigham, J. (in press). A meta-analysis of the verbal overshadowing effect in face identification. Applied Cognitive Psychology.
21. * Melara, R. D., Dewitt-Rickards, T. S., & O'Brien, T. P. (1989). Enhancing lineup identification accuracy: Two codes are better than one. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(5), 706-713.
22. * Newman, K. (1998). The effects of a weak memory trace on sequential and simultaneous lineup identifications. Unpublished undergraduate thesis, Queen's University.
23. * Parker, J. E, & Ryan, V. (1993). An attempt to reduce guessing behavior in children's and adults' eye-witness identifications. Law and Human Behavior, 17(1), 11-26.
24. * Parker, J. E, Tredoux, C., & Nunez, D. (2000). Lineup measures, lineup procedure, and optimality of encoding. Paper presented at the AP-LS Biennial Conference, New Orleans, LA.
25. Pozzulo, J. D., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (1997). Conducting identifications with children: What not to do. Expert Evidence, 5, 126-132.
26. Pozzulo, J. D., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (1999). Eliminating the innocent: Enhancing the accuracy and credibility of child witnesses. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 167-176.
27. * Rombough, V. J. (1994). The effects of lineup presentation and practice on lineup identification accuracy in child eyewitnesses. Unpublished undergraduate thesis, Queen's University.
28. Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
29. * Smyth, L. (1994). Sequential presentation and practice: The jury is still out. Unpublished undergraduate thesis, Queen's University.
30. * Sporer, S. L. (1993). Eyewitness identification accuracy, confidence, and decision times in simultaneous and sequential lineups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 22-33.
31. Steblay, N. (1992). A meta-analytic review of the weapon-focus effect. Law and Human Behavior, 16, 413-424.
32. Steblay, N. (1997). Social influence in eyewitness recall: A meta-analytic review of lineup instruction effects. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 283-297.
33. Steblay, N., Besirevic, J., Fulero, S., & Jimenez-Lorente, B. (1999). The effects of pretrial publicity on juror verdicts: A meta-analytic review. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 219-235.
34. Technical Working Group for Eyewitness Evidence. (1999). Eyewitness evidence: A guide for law enforcement [Booklet]. Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.
35. * Vanderwal, A. (1996). The effects of the sequential presentation of lineups with multiple perpetrators on eyewitness identification. Unpublished undergraduate thesis, Queen's University.
36. * Varrette, T. K. (1994). The effects of similarity-to-suspect versus match-to-description strategies for selecting lineup foils when perpetrator appearance has been altered. Unpublished undergraduate thesis, Queen's University.
37. Wells, G. L. (1978). Applied eyewitness testimony research: System variables and estimator variables. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1546-1557.
38. Wells, G. (1984). The psychology of lineup identifications. Journal of Applied Social Psychology ,14, 89-103.