A policy evaluation of simultaneous and sequential lineups

Psychology, Public Policy, and Law

Volumn 12, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 394-418

  Malpass, Roy S ^a  

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

Author keywords

Identification outcomes; Policy; Sequential lineups; Simultaneous lineups; Utility model

Indexed keywords

EID: 33845268655     PISSN: 10768971     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/1076-8971.12.4.394     Document Type: Article

References (67)

1. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
2. Apostolakis, G. E., & Lemon, D. M. (2005), A screening methodology for the identification and ranking of infrastructure vulnerabilities due to terrorism. Risk Analysis, 25, 361-376.
3. Behrman, B. W., & Davey, S. L. (2001). Eyewitness identification in actual criminal cases: An archival analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 475-491.
4. Bentham, J. (1843). Principles of judicial procedure. In J. Bowring (Ed.), The works of Jeremy Bentham (pp. 1-188). Edinburgh, Scotland: William Tait.
5. Blackstone, W. (1978). Commentaries on the laws of England (Vol. 4). New York: Garland Publishing. (Original work published 1783)
6. Borchard, E. M. (1932). Convicting the innocent: Errors of criminal justice. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
7. Brandon, R., & Davies, C. (1973). Wrongful imprisonment: Mistaken convictions and their consequences. Hamden, CT: Archon Books.
8. Collins, W. (1874). The dead alive. Boston: Shepard & Gill.
9. Connors, E., Lundregan, T., Miller, N., & McEwan, T. (1996). Convicted by juries, exonerated by science: Case studies in the use of DNA evidence to establish innocence after trial. Retrieved January 1, 2006, from the National. Criminal. Justice Reference Service Web site: http://www.ncjrs.gov/ pdffiles/dnaevid.pdf
10. Devenport, J. L., Slinson, V., Cutler, B. L., & Kravitz, D. A. (2002). How effective are the cross-examination and expert testimony safeguards? Jurors' perceptions of the suggestiveness and fairness of biased lineup procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 1042-1054.
11. Devlin, P. (1976). Report to the Secretary of State for the Home Department of the Departmental Committee on Evidence of Identification in Criminal Cases. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
12. Edwards, W., Guttentag, M. & Snapper, K. (1975). A decision-theoretic approach to evaluation research. In E. L. Struening & M. Guttentag (Eds.), Handbook of evaluation research (Vol. 1, pp. 139-181). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
13. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
14. Fishbein, M., & Yzer, M. C. (2003). Using theory to design effective health behavior interventions. Communication Theory, 13, 164-183.
15. Fisher, R. P. (1995). Interviewing victims and witnesses of crime. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 1, 732-764.
16. Franklin, B. (1906). The writings of Benjamin Franklin (Vol. 9, A. H. Smyth, Ed.). New York: Macmillan. (Original work published 1780)
17. French, S., Bedford, T., & Atherton, E. (2005). Supporting ALARP decision making by cost benefit analysis and multiattribute utility theory. Journal of Risk Research, 8, 207-223.
18. Hämäläinen, R. P., Lindstedl, M. R. K., & Sinkko, K. (2000). Multiattribute risk analysis in nuclear emergency management. Risk Analysis, 20, 455-467.
19. Hammond, K. R., & Adelman, L. (1976, October 22). Science, values and human judgment. Science, 194, 389-396.
20. Harrison, D. A. (1995). Volunteer motivation and attendance decisions: Competitive theory testing in multiple samples from a homeless shelter. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 371-385.
21. Hawthorne, G., Osbourne, R., McNeil, H., & Richardson, J. (1996, February). The Australian Multi-attribute Utility (AMAU) construction and initial evaluation (Working Paper No. 56). Clayton, Victoria, Australia: Monash University, Centre for Health Program Evaluation.
22. Hawthorne, G., Richardson, J., & Day, N. (2003, June). A comparison of five multi attribute utility instruments (Working Paper No. 140). Clayton, Victoria, Australia: Monash University, Centre for Health Program Evaluation.
23. Huff, C. R., Ratner, A., & Sagarin, E. (1996). Convicted but innocent: Wrongful conviction and public policy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
24. Innocence Project. (2005a, December 1). Improving eyewitness identification procedures. Retrieved December 26, 2005, from http://www.innocenceproject.org/docs/Eyewitness_ID_FactSheet.pdf
25. Innocence Project. (2005b, December 1). Model legislation, 2005 state legislative sessions: An act creating a commission to investigate and prevent mistaken convictions. Retrieved December 26, 2005, from http://www. innocenceproject.org/docs/Model_Legislation_Inn_Comm.pdf
26. Jiménez, A. (2003). A decision support system for multiattribute utility evaluation based on imprecise assignments. Decision Support Systems, 36, 65-79.
27. Johnson, M. K., Hashtroudi, S., & Lindsay, D. S. (1993). Source monitoring. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 3-28.
28. Klobuchar, A., Steblay, N., & Caligiuri, H. (in press). Improving eyewitness identifications: Hennepin County's blind sequential-lineup pilot project. The Cardozo Public Law, Policy and Ethics Journal.
29. Levi, A. M., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (2001). Lineup and photospread procedures: Issues concerning policy recommendations. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7, 776-790.
30. Lindsay, R. C. L. (1999). Applying applied research: Selling the sequential, line-up. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13, 219-225.
31. Loflus, E., & Ketcham, K. (1991). Witness for the defense: The accused, the eyewitness and the expert who puts memory on trial. New York: St. Martin's Press.
32. Malpass, R. S. (1990). An excursion into utilitarian analysis. Behavior Science Research, 24, 1-15.
33. Malpass, R. S. (1996). Enhancing eyewitness memory. In S. Sporer, R. S. Malpass, & G. Koehnken (Eds.), Psychological issues in eyewitness identification (pp. 177-204). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
34. Malpass, R. S. (2006). An Excel spreadsheet for calculating policy utilities for simultaneous and sequential lineups. Retrieved September 16, 2006, from http://eyewitness.utep.edu/documents/ MalpassUtilityModelAppliedToSim&SeqLineups.xls
35. Malpass, R. S., & Devine, P. G. (1981). Guided memory in eyewitness identification. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 343-350.
36. Malpass, R. S., & Rigoni, M. (2005, March). Crime seriousness and the multi-attribute utility of simultaneous and sequential eyewitness lineups. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society, La Jolla, CA.
37. Malpass, R. S., Tredoux, C. G., & McQuiston-Surrett, D. E. (in press). Lineup construction and lineup fairness. In R. Lindsay, D. Ross, J. D. Read, & M. P. Toglia (Eds.), Handbook of eyewitness psychology: Vol. 2. Memory for people. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
38. Manitoba Justice. (2001). The inquiry regarding Thomas Sophonow, Retrieved December 16, 2005, from http://www.gov.mb.ca/justice/publications/ sophonow/recommendations/english.html
39. McQuiston-Surrett, D. E., Malpass, R. S., & Tredoux, C. G. (2006). Sequential vs. simultaneous lineups: A review of methods, data, and theory. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 12, 137-169.
40. Mecklenburg, S. H. (2006, March). Report to the legislature of the State of Illinois: The Illinois pilot program on sequential double-blind identification procedures. Spring-field: Illinois State Police.
41. Meissner, C. A., Tredoux, C. G., Parker, J. E., & MacLin, O. H. (2005). Eyewitness decisions in simultaneous and sequential lineups: A dual-process signal detection theory analysis. Memory & Cognition, 33, 783-792.
42. Northampton Police Department. (2005). Eyewitness identification procedure. Retrieved December 26, 2005, from http://www.innocenceproject.org/ docs/Northampton_MA_ID_Protocols.pdf
43. North Carolina Actual Innocence Commission. (2005). Recommendations for eyewitness identification. Retrieved December 26, 2005, from http://www.innoceticeproject.org/docs/NC_Innocence_Commission_Identification. html
44. Office of the Attorney General, Department of Law and Public Safety. (2001). Attorney general guidelines for preparing and conducting photo and live lineup identification procedures. Retrieved December 26, 2005, from http://www.state.nj.us/lps/dcj/agguide/photoid.pdf
45. Pike, G., Brace, N., & Kynan, S. (2002, March). The visual identification of suspects: Procedures and practice (Briefing Note No. 2/02). London: Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate.
46. Police Chiefs' Association of Santa Clara County. (2005). Line-up protocol for law enforcement. Retrieved December 26, 2005, from http://www.innocenceproject.org/docs/Santa_Clara_Lineup_Protocols.pdf
47. Radelet, M. L., Bedau, H. A., & Putnam., C. E. (1992). In spite of innocence: Erroneous convictions in capital cases. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
48. Scheck, B., Neufeld, P., & Dwyer, J. (2000). Actual innocence: Five days to execution, and other dispatches from the wrongly convicted. New York: Doubleday.
49. Sheppard, B. H., Hartwick, J., & Warshaw, P. R. (1988). The theory of reasoned action: A meta-analysis of past research with recommendations for modifications and future research. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 325-343.
50. Slater, A. (1994). Identification parades: A scientific evaluation. London: Home Office.
51. Sporer, S. L., Koehnken, G., & Malpass, R. S. (1996). Introduction: 200 years of mistaken identification. In S. Sporer, R. S. Malpass, & G. Koehnken (Eds.), Psychological issues in eyewitness identification, (pp. 1-6). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
52. Stanton, A. L., Estes, M. A., Estes, N. C., Cameron, C. L., Danoff-Burg, S., & Irving, L. M. (1998). Treatment decision making and adjustment to breast cancer: A longitudinal study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 313-322.
53. Steblay, N., Dysarl, 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.
54. Technical Working Group for Eyewitness Evidence. (1999). Eyewitness evidence: A guide for law enforcement (NCJ No. 178240). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
55. Valentine, T., Pickering, A., & Darling, S. (2003). Characteristics of eyewitness identification that predict the outcome of real lineups. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 969-993.
56. Volokh, A. (1997). n guilty men. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 146, 173-211.
57. Retrieved December 26, 2005, from, http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/guilty. htm.
58. Voltaire. (1974). Zadig; or, the book of fate (C. Crebillon, Ed.). New York: Garland Publishing. (Original work published 1749)
59. Wagenaar, W. (1988). Identifying Ivan: A case study in legal psychology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
60. Warden, R. (2005). Wilkie Collins's The Dead Alive: The novel, the case and wrongful convictions. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
61. Wells, G. L. (2002, Fall). Expert opinion. American Psychology-Law Society News, 22, 14-15.
62. 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.
63. 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.
64. Wogalter, M. S., Malpass, R. S., & McQuiston, D. E. (2004). A national survey of police on preparation and conduct of identification lineups. Psychology, Crime and Law, 10, 69-82.
65. Wright, D. B., & McDaid, A. T. (1996). Comparing system and estimator variables using data from real line-ups. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, 75-84.
66. Yarmey, A. D. (2003). Eyewitness identification: Guidelines and recommendations for identification procedures in the United States and in Canada. Canadian Psychology, 44, 181-189.
67. Zimmerman, L. A., Malpass, R. S., & MacLin, O. H. (2006). Unconfounding the simultaneous v. sequential lineup comparison. Manuscript submitted for publication.