Sequential vs. simultaneous lineups: A review of methods, data, and theory

Psychology, Public Policy, and Law

Volumn 12, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 137-169

  McQuiston Surrett, Dawn ^a,d   Malpass, Roy S ^b   Tredoux, Colin G ^c  

^a ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT EL PASO   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CAPE TOWN   (South Africa)

^d ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY WEST   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33747079227     PISSN: 10768971     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/1076-8971.12.2.137     Document Type: Review

References (110)

1. Beaman, A. L. (1991). An empirical comparison of meta-analytic and traditional reviews.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 252-257.
2. Behrman, B. W., & Davey, S. L. (2001). Eyewitness identification in actual criminal cases: An archival analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 475-491.
3. Bellinger, K. (1995). Correct lineup rejections as a function of lineup presentation. Unpublished undergraduate thesis, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
4. Blank, H., & Krahe, J. (2000). The influence of an outstanding similarity between two persons in a lineup on large! identification in sequential and simultaneous lineups.Unpublished manuscript, University of Leipzig, Germany.
5. Clark, S. E. (2003). A memory and decision model for eyewitness identification. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 77, 629-654.
6. Clark, S. E., & Davey, S. L. (2005). The larget-lo-foils shift in simultaneous and sequential lineups. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 151-172.
7. Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Chicago: Rand McNally College.
8. Cooper, H. M., & Hedges, L. V. (1994). The handbook of research synthesis. New York:Russell Sage Foundation.
9. Cooper, H. M., & Rosenthal, R. (1980). Statistical versus traditional procedures for summarizing research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 87, 442-449.
10. Corber, S. K. (1995). Identification procedure: Implications for preschoolers' eyewitness identification accuracy, Unpublished undergraduate thesis, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
11. Cox, M. (1.992). The role of estimator and systems variables in face identification. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Purdue University.
12. Cutler, B. L., & Penrod, S. D. (1988). Improving the reliability of eyewitness identification: Lineup construction and presentation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 281-290.
13. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
14. Deffenbacher, K. A., Bornstein, B. H., Penrod, S. D., & McGorty, E. K. (2004), A meta-analytic review of the effects of high stress on eyewitness memory. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 687-706.
15. Doob, A. N., & Kirshenbaum, H. M. (1973). Bias in police lineups - Partial remembering. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 18, 287-293.
16. Dormer, G. (1983). Effect of absolute judgmental processes on eyewitness identification accuracy. Unpublished undergraduate thesis, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
17. Douglass, A. B., & McQuiston-Surrett, D. (in press). Post-identification feedback: Exploring the effects of sequential photospreads and eyewitnesses' awareness of the identification task. Applied Cognitive Psychology.
18. Dysart, J. E. (1999). The effects of delay on eyewitness identification accuracy. Unpublished master's thesis, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
19. Dysarl, J. E., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (2001). A preidentification questioning effect: Serendipitously increasing correct rejection. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 155-165.
20. Ebbesen, E. B., & Flowe, II. (2002). Simultaneous v. sequential lineups: What do we really know? Unpublished manuscript.
21. Gaitens, K., Zimmerman, L., McQuiston, D. E., & Malpass, R. S. (2002, March). Structural bias in eyewitness lineups: When does the suspect stand out? Poster session presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society, Austin, TX.
22. Glass, G. V. (1976). Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educational Researcher, 5, 3-8.
23. Gonzalez, R., Davis, J., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1995). Who should stand next to the suspect? Problems in the assessment of lineup fairness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 525-531.
24. Green, D. M., & Swets, J. A. (1966). Signal detection theory and psychophysics. New York: Wiley.
25. Gronlund, S. D. (2004). Sequential lineups: Shift in criterion or decision strategy? Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 362-368.
26. Gronlund, S. D. (2005). Sequential lineup advantage: Contributions of distinctiveness and recollection. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 23-37.
27. Hannaford, K. M. (1985). Relative versus absolute judgments in lineup identifications. Unpublished undergraduate thesis, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
28. Haw, R. M., & Fisher, R. P. (2004). Effects of administrator-witness contact on eyewitness identification accuracy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 1106-1112.
29. Jacob, P. (1994). The feasibility of using multiple culprit sequential lineups. Unpublished undergraduate thesis, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
30. Kassin, S., 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.
31. Klobuchar, A., Steblay, N., & Caligiuri, H. (in press). Improving eyewitness identifica-tions: Hennepin County's blind sequential lineup pilot project. The Cardozo Public Law, Policy and Ethics Journal.
32. Kneller, W., Memon, A., & Stevenage, S. (2001), Simultaneous and sequential lineups: Decision processes of accurate and inaccurate eyewitnesses, Applied Cognitive Psychology, 15, 659-671.
33. Kolata, G., & Pctcrson, I. (2001, July 21). New Jersey is trying new way for witnesses to say, "It's him". The New York Times.
34. Laldin, S. (1997). Contextual effects on lineup identification of multiple culprits. Unpublished undergraduate thesis, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
35. Laughery, K. R., Alexander, J. F., & Lane, A. B. (1971). Recognition of human faces: Effects of target exposure time, target position, and type of photograph. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 490-496.
36. Laughery, K. R., Jensen, D. G., & Wogalter, M. S. (1988). Response bias with prototypic faces. In M. M. Gruneberg, P. E. Morris, & R. N. Sykes (Eds.), Practical aspects of memory: Current research and issues: Vol. 1. Memory in everyday life (pp. 157-162). Oxford, England: Wiley.
37. Levi, A. M., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (2001). Lineup and photospread procedures: Issues concerning policy recommendations. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7, 776790.
38. Lindsay, R. C., & Bellinger. K. (1999). Alternatives to the sequential lineup: The importance of controlling the pictures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 315-321.
39. Lindsay, R. C., Lea, J. A., & Fulford, J. A. (1991). Sequential lineup presentation: Technique matters. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 741-745.
40. Lindsay, R. C., 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, 796-802.
41. Lindsay, R. C., Martin, R., & Webber, L. (1.994). Default values in eyewitness descriptions: A problem for the match-to-description lineup foil selection strategy. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 527-541.
42. Lindsay, R. C., 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.
43. Lindsay, R. C., & Wells, G. L. (1985). Improving eyewitness identifications from lineups: Simultaneous versus sequential lineup presentation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 556-564.
44. Lindsay, R. C. L. (1999). Applying applied research: Selling the sequential, line-up. Applied Cognitive. Psychology, 13, 219-225.
45. Lindsay, R. C. L. (2002). Limitations of sequential lineups. Unpublished manuscript.
46. Lindsay, R. C. L., Smith, S. M., & Pryke, S. (1999). Measures of lineup fairness: Do they postdict identification accuracy? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13, S93-S107
47. Lindsay, R. C. L., & Turtle, J. (2001). Best practices for suspect identification: 'Blind' sequential lineup procedures. Unpublished manuscript.
48. Luus, C. A., & Wells, G. L. (1994). The malleability of eyewitness confidence: Cowitness and perseverance effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 714-723.
49. MacLin, O. H. (2001). Towards an ecological approach in examining the diagnosticity of sequential and simultaneous lineup presentations. Unpublished manuscript.
50. MacLin, O. H., & Zimmerman, L. A. (2003, July). Evaluating relative vs. absolute judgments when identifying members of another race. In C. A. Meissner (Chair), Cross-race effect in memory for faces: Developmental, theoretical and applied implications. Symposium, presented at the meeting of the Society for Applied Research in Memory & Cognition, Aberdeen, Scotland.
51. MacMillan, N. A., & Creelman, C. D. (1991). Detection theory: A user's guide. New York: Cambridge University Press.
52. Malpass, R. S. (1981). Effective size and defendant bias in eyewitness identification lineups. Law and Human Behavior, 5, 299-309.
53. Malpass, R. S., & Devine, P. G. (1983), Measuring the fairness of eyewitness identification lineups, In S. Lloyd-Bostock, & B. Clifford (Eds.), Evaluating witness evidence (pp. 81-102). London: Wiley.
54. Malpass, R. S., & Devine, P. G. (1984). Research on suggestion in lineups and photospreads. In G. L. Wells & E. F. Loflus (Eds.), Eyewitness testimony: Psychological perspectives (pp. 64-91). Melbourne, Australia: Cambridge University Press.
55. Malpass, R. S., & Kravitz, J. (1969). Recognition for faces of own and other "race." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13, 330-334.
56. Malpass, R. S., MacLin, O. H., Zimmerman, L. A., Tredoux, C. G., & McQuiston, D. E. (2003, July), A study space analysis for policy development: Application to simultaneous vs, sequential lineups. In R. S. Malpass (Chair), Simultaneous or sequential lineups? New data, new perspectives, new looks at old questions, and a study space based policy analysis. Symposium presented at the meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society, Edinburgh, Scotland.
57. Malpass, R. S., Tredoux, C. G., & McQuiston-Surrett, D. (in press). Lineup construction and lineup fairness. In R. Lindsay, D. Ross, J. D. Read, & M. P. Toglia (Eds.), Handbook of eyewitness psychology: Volume 2. Memory for people. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
58. Martins, S. (1996). The effects of changes in the appearance and. lineup position of targets on eyewitness identification. Unpublished undergraduate thesis, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
59. Marwitz, D. B., & Wogalter, M. S. (1988). Bias in photo-spreads of faces: A comparison of two lineup construction methods. Paper presented at the annual proceedings of the Human Factors Society, Santa Monica, CA.
60. McQuiston, D. E., & Malpass, R. S. (2002). Validity of the mock witness paradigm:Testing the assumptions. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 439-453.
61. McQuiston, D. E., Salinas, R., Villegas, E., Garcia, G., & Malpass, R. S. (2001, May). Utility of the sequential lineup procedure: Exploring generalizability issues. Poster session presented at the annual meeting of the Western Psychological Association, Maui, HI.
62. Mecklenburg, S. H. (2006, March). Report to the legislature of the State of Illinois: The Illinois pilot program on sequential double-blind identification procedures. Springfield, IL: Illinois State Police.
63. Meissner, C. A. (2002). Applied aspects of the instructional bias effect in verbal overshadowing. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 16, 911-928.
64. Meissner, C. A., & Brigham, J. C. (2001). Thirty years of investigating the own-race bias in memory for faces: A meta-analytic review. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7, 3-35.
65. Meissner, C. A., Tredoux, C. G., Parker, J. F., & MacLin, O. H. (2005). Eyewitness decisions in simultaneous and sequential lineups: A dual-process signal detection theoiy analysis. Memory & Cognition, 33, 783-792.
66. 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, 706-713.
67. Memon, A., & Bartlett, J. (2002). The effects of verbalization on face recognition in younger and older adults. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 16, 635-650.
68. Memon, A., & Gabbert, F. (2003a). Improving the identification accuracy of senior witnesses: Do pre-lineup questions and sequential, testing help? Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 341-347.
69. Memon, A., & Gabbert, F. (2003b). Unraveling the effects of sequential presentation in culprit present lineups. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 703-714.
70. Narby, D. J., Cutler, B. L., & Penrod, S. D. (1996). The effects of witness, target, and situational factors on eyewitness identifications. In S. L. Sporer, R. S. Malpass, & G. Köhnken (Eds.), Psychological issues in eyewitness identification (pp. 23-52). Mahwall, NJ: Erlbaum
71. National Research Council. (1996). Evaluation of forensic DNA evidence: Update on evaluating DNA evidence. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
72. Newman, K. (1998). The effects of a weak memory trace on sequential and simultaneous lineup identifications. Unpublished undergraduate thesis, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
73. Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental process. Psychological Review, 84, 231-258.
74. Parker, J. F., & Ryan, V. (1993). An attempt to reduce guessing behavior in children's and adults' eyewitness identifications. Law and Human Behavior, 17, 11-26.
75. Parker, J., Tredoux, C., & Nunez, D. (2000, March). Lineup measures, lineup procedure, and optimally of encoding. Poster session presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society, New Orleans, LA.
76. Phillips, M. R., McAuliff, B. D., Kovera, M. B., & Cutler, B. L. (1999). Double-blind photoarray administration as a safeguard against investigator bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 940-951.
77. Read, J. D., Yuille, J. C., & Tollestrup, P. (1992). Recollections of a robbery: Effects of arousal and alcohol upon recall and person identification. Law and Human Behavior, 16, 425-446.
78. Rombough, V. J. (1994). The effects of lineup presentation and practice on lineup identification accuracy in child eyewitnesses. Unpublished undergraduate thesis, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
79. Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasiexperimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
80. Shapiro, L. R., & Hiatt, T. A. (2003). How to pick a "perp": An investigation of photographic lineup procedures. Unpublished manuscript.
81. Shapiro, P., & Penrod, S. D. (1986). A meta-analysis of the facial identification literature. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 139-156.
82. Smyth, L. (1994). Sequential presentation and practice: The jury is still out. Unpublished undergraduate thesis, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
83. Sporer, S. L. (1993). Eyewitness identification accuracy, confidence, and decision times in simultaneous and sequential lineups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 22-33.
84. Sporer, S. L. (1996). Psychological aspects of person descriptions. In S. L. Sporer, R. S. Malpass, & G. Köhnken (Eds.), Psychological issues in eyewitness identification (pp. 53-86). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
85. Steblay, N. M. (1997). Social influence in eyewitness recall: A meta-analytic review of lineup instruction effects. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 283-297.
86. 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.
87. Studebaker, C. L., & Goodman-Delahunty, J. (Eds.) (2002). Expert testimony in the courts: The influence of the Daubert, Joiner, and Kumho Decisions, Part 2 [Special issue]. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 8(3).
88. Technical Working Group for Eyewitness Evidence. (1999). Eyewitness evidence: A guide for law enforcement (NCJ No. 178240). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
89. Tredoux, C. G. (1998). Statistical inference on measures of lineup fairness. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 217-237.
90. Tredoux, C. G. (1999). Statistical considerations when determining measures of lineup size and lineup bias. Applied Cognitive. Psychology, 13, S9-S26.
91. Tunnicliff, J. L., & Clark, S. E. (2000). Selecting foils for identification lineups: Matching suspects or descriptions? Law and Human Behavior, 24, 231-258.
92. United States v. Hines, 55 F. Supp. 2d 62 (D. Mass. 1999).
93. Vanderwal, A. (1996). Hie effects of the sequential presentation of lineups with multiple culprits on eyewitness identification. Unpublished undergraduate thesis, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
94. Varrette, T. K. (1994). The effects of similarity-to-suspect versus match-to-description strategies for selecting lineup foils when culprit appearance has been altered. Unpublished undergraduate thesis, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
95. Webb, E. J., Campbell, D. T., Sechrest, L., & Schwarte, R. D. (1966), Unobtrusive measures: Nonreactive research in the social sciences. Chicago; Rand McNally.
96. Wells, G. L. (1978). Applied eyewitness-testimony research: System variables and estimator variables. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1546-1557.
97. Wells, G. L. (1984). The psychology of lineup identifications. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 14, 89-103.
98. Wells, G. L. (1993). What do we know about eyewitness identification? American Psychologist, 48, 553-571.
99. Wells, G. L. (2002, Fall). Expert opinion. American Psychology-Law Society News, 22, pp. 14-15.
100. Wells, G. L., & Bradfield, A. L. (1998). "Good, you identified the suspect": Feedback to eyewitnesses distorts their reports of the witnessing experience. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 360-376.
101. Wells, G. L., & Luus, C. A. E. (1990). Police lineups as experiments: Social methodology as a framework for properly conducted lineups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16, 106-117.
102. 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.
103. Wells, G. L., Seelau, E. P., Rydell, S. M., & Luus, C. A. E. (1994). Recommendations for properly conducted lineup identification tasks. In D. F. Ross, J. D. Read, & M. Toglia (Eds.), Adult eyewitness testimony: Current trends and developments (pp. 223-244). New York: Cambridge University Press.
104. Wells, G. L., Small, M., Penrod, S., Malpass, R. S., Fulero, S. M., & Brimacombe, C. A. E. (1998). Eyewitness identification procedures: Recommendations for lineups and photospreads. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 603-647.
105. Wells, G. L., & Windschitl, P. D. (1999). Stimulus sampling and social psychological experimentation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1115-1125.
106. Willis, C. E. (1990). Strategies in eyewitness identification. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas.
107. Wogalter, M. S., Malpass, R. S., & McQuiston, D. E. (2004). A national survey of U.S. police on preparation and conduct of identification lineups. Psychology, Crime & Law, 10, 69-82.
108. Wogalter, M. S., Marwitz, D. B., & Leonard, D. C. (1992). Suggestiveness in pholospread lineups: Similarity induces distinctiveness. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 6, 443-453.
109. Yarmey, A. D., & Morris, S. (1998). The effects of discussion on eyewitness memory. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 1637-1638.
110. Zimmerman, L. A., Malpass, R. S., & MacLin, O. H. (2006). Unconfounding the simultaneous vs. sequential lineup comparison. Manuscript submitted for publication.