Eyewitness Accuracy Rates in Police Showup and Lineup Presentations: A Meta-Analytic Comparison

Law and Human Behavior

Volumn 27, Issue 5, 2003, Pages 523-540

  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

Eyewitness; Lineup; Meta analysis; Showup

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; CONFERENCE PAPER; HUMAN; HYPOTHESIS; IDENTITY; LITERATURE; META ANALYSIS; OFFENDER; POLICE; PUBLICATION; WITNESS;

CRIME; CRIMINAL LAW; DECISION MAKING; HUMANS; MENTAL RECALL; PHOTOGRAPHY; POLICE; RECOGNITION (PSYCHOLOGY); VISUAL PERCEPTION;

EID: 0142120211     PISSN: 01477307     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1025438223608     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (30)

1. Beal, C. R., Schmitt, K. L., & Dekle, D. J. (1995). Eyewitness identification of children: Effects of absolute judgments, nonverbal response options, and event encoding. Law and Human Behavior, 19, 197-216.
2. Behrman, B., & Davey, S. (2001). Eyewitness identification in actual criminal cases: An archival analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 475-491.
3. Bradley v. State, 264 SD.E.2d 332 (Ga. App. 1980).
4. Commonwealth v. Carter, 414 A.2d 369 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1979).
5. Dekle, D. J. (1993). The effects of testing delay and composite viewing on identification accuracy in lineups and showups. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Dartmouth College.
6. Dekle, D. J., Beal, C. R., Elliott, R., & Hunneycutt, D. (1996). Children as witnesses: A comparison of lineup versus showup identification methods. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, 1-12.
7. Flowe, H., Ebbesen, E., Burke, C., and Chivabunditt, P. (2001, July). At the scene of the crime: An examination of the external validity of published studies on line-up identification accuracy. Paper presented at the American Psychological Society Conference, Toronto, Canada.
8. Gonzalez, R., Ellsworth, P. C., & Pembroke, M. (1993). Response biases in lineups and showups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 525-537.
9. Holden v. State, 602 P.2d 452 (Alaska 1979).
10. Kassin, S. M., Tubb, V. A., Hosch, H. M., & Memon, A. (2001). On the general acceptance of eyewitness research: A new survey of the experts. American Psychologist, 56, 405-416.
11. Lindsay, R. C. L. (1999). Applying applied research: Selling the sequential lineup. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13, 219-225.
12. Lindsay, R. C. L., Pozzulo, J. D., 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, 391-404.
13. Lindsay, R. C. L., & Wells, G. L. (1980). What price justice? Exploring the relationship of lineup fairness to identification accuracy. Law and Human Behavior, 4, 303-313.
14. 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.
15. McQuiston, D., & Malpass, R. (2001, June). Eyewitness identifications in criminal cases: An archival study. Paper presented at the fourth biennial meeting of the Society for Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
16. Phillips, M. R., McAuliff, B. D., Kovera, M. B., & Cutler, B. L. (1999). Double-blind photoarray adminsitration as a safeguard against investigator bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(6), 940-951.
17. Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
18. Steblay, N. (1997). Social influence in eyewitness recall: A meta-analytic review of lineup instruction effects. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 283-297.
19. Steblay, N., Dysart, J., Fulero, S., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (2001). Eyewitness accuracy rates in sequential and simultaneous lineup presentations: A meta-analytic comparison. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 459-473.
20. Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 (1967).
21. 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, Document Number NCJ-178240.
22. United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967).
23. Wagenaar, W. A., & Veefkind, N. (1992). Comparison of one-person and many-person lineups: A warning against unsafe practices. In F. Losel, D. Bender, & T. Bliesner (Eds.), Psychology and law: International perspectives (pp. 275-285) Berlin: Walter De Gruyter.
24. Wells, G. (1984). The psychology of lineup identifications. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 14, 89-103.
25. Wells, G. L., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (1980). On estimating the diagnosticity of eyewitness nonidentifications. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 776-784.
26. Wells, G. L., Malpass, R. S., Lindsay, R. C. L., Fisher, R. P., Turtle, J. W., & Fulero, S. M. (2000). From the lab to the police station: A successful application of eyewitness research. American Psychologist, 55, 581-598.
27. Wells, G., Small, M., Penrod, S., Malpass, R., Fulero, S., & Brimacombe, E. (1998). Good practice recommendations for lineups and photospreads. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 603-647.
28. Wells, G. L., Wright, E. F., & Bradfield, A. L. (1999). Witnesses to crime: Social and cognitive factors governing the validity of people's reports. In R. Roesch, S. D. Hart, & J. R. P. Ogloff (Eds.), Psychology and law: The State of the discipline (pp. 53-87). Kluwer Academic/Plenum: New York.
29. Yarmey, A. D., Yarmey, A. L., & Yarmey, M. J. (1994). Face and voice identifications in showups and lineups. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 8, 453-464.
30. Yarmey, A. D., Yarmey, A. L., & Yarmey, M. J. (1996). Accuracy of eyewitness identification in showups and lineups. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 459-477.