The effect of lineup member similarity on recognition accuracy in simultaneous and sequential lineups

Law and Human Behavior

Volumn 31, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 33-52

  Flowe, Heather D ^a   Ebbesen, Ebbe B ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Face perception; Judgment; Legal testimony; Memory; Witnesses

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ARTICLE; FACE; FEMALE; HUMAN; LEGAL ASPECT; MALE; MEMORY; RECOGNITION; WITNESS;

ADULT; FACE; FEMALE; HUMANS; JUDGMENT; MALE; RECOGNITION (PSYCHOLOGY); SOCIAL PERCEPTION; VISUAL PERCEPTION;

EID: 33847271290     PISSN: 01477307     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10979-006-9045-9     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Behrman, B. W., & Davey, S. L. (2001). Eyewitness identification in actual criminal cases: An archival analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 25(5), 475-491.
2. Benjamin, A. S. (2005). Recognition memory and introspective remember/know judgments: Evidence for the influence of distractor plausibility on "remembering" and a caution about purportedly nonparametric measures. Memory and Cognition, 33(2), 261-269.
3. Benjamin, A.,&Bawa, S. (2004).Distractor plausibility and criterion placement in recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 51(2), 159-172.
4. Clark, S. E. (2005). A re-examination of the effects of biased lineup instructions in eyewitness identification. Law and Human Behavior, 29(4), 395-424.
5. Clark, S. E., & Davey, S. L. (2005). The target-to-foils shift in simultaneous and sequential lineups. Law and Human Behavior, 29(2), 151-172.
6. Ebbesen, E. B., & Flowe, H. D. (2002). Simultaneous v. Sequential Lineups:What Do We Really Know? Retrieved January 9, 2006, from http://www-psy.ucsd.edu/%7eeebbesen/SimSeq.htm
7. Flowe, H. D., Ebbesen, E. B., Burke, C., & Chivabundtt, P. (2001). At the scene of the crime: An examination of the external validity of published studies on line-up identification accuracy. Presented at the American Psychological Society, Toronto, Canada.
8. Jacoby, L. L., & Dallas, M. (1981). On the relationship between autobiographical memory and perceptual learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 110, 306-340.
9. Laughery, K. R., Jensen, D. G., & Wogalter, M. S. (1988). Response bias with prototypic faces. In M. M. Gruneberg, R. Sykes, & P. Morris (Eds.), Practical aspects of memory: Current research and issues (pp. 157-162). Chichester: Wiley.
10. Lindsay, R. C. L., Lea, J. A., Nosworthy, G. J., & Fulford, J. A. (1991). Biased lineups: Sequential presentation reduces the problem. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(6), 796-802.
11. 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, 527-541.
12. Lindsay, R. C., Wallbridge, H., & Drennan, D. (1987). Do the clothes make the man? An exploration of the effect of lineup attire on eyewitness identification accuracy. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 19(4), 463-478.
13. Luus, C. E., & Wells, G. L. (1991). Eyewitness identification and the selection of distracters for lineups. Law and Human Behavior, 15(1), 43-57.
14. 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 theory analysis. Memory and Cognition, 33(5), 783-792. People v. Cobb, No. B170957, 2004, Cal. App. LEXIS 2088.
15. 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(5), 459-473.
16. Steblay, N., Dysart, J., Fulero, S., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (2003). Eyewitness accuracy rates in police showup and lineup presentations: A meta-analytic comparison. Law and Human Behavior, 27(5), 523-540.
17. Steblay, N. M. (1997). Social influence in eyewitness recall: A meta-analytic review of lineup instruction effects. Law and Human Behavior, 21(3), 283-297.
18. Tunnicliff, J. L.,&Clark, S. E. (2000). Selecting foils for identification lineups:Matching suspects or descriptions? Law and Human Behavior, 24, 231-258.
19. Wells, G. L. (2006). The removal-without-replacement effect for lineups. Manuscript in preparation.
20. Wells, G. L. (1993). What do we know about eyewitness identification? American Psychologist, 48, 553-571.
21. Wells, G. L., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (1980). On estimating the diagnosticity of eyewitness nonidentification. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 776-784.
22. Wells, G. L., Rydell, S. M., & Seelau, E. P. (1993). The selection of distractors for eyewitness lineups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(5), 835-844.
23. 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, 22(6), 603-647.
24. Wogalter, M. S., Burger, M. A., & Malpass, R. S. (1993). Methods of constructing live and photographic lineups by police officers in the United States. Paper presented at the International Conference on Face Processing, Wales, United Kingdom.
25. Wogalter, M. S., Marwitz, D. B., & Leonard, D. C. (1992). Suggestiveness in photospread line-ups: Similarity induces distinctiveness. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 6(5), 443-453.
26. Xu,M., & Bellezza, F. S. (2001). A comparison of the multimemory and detection theories of know and remember recognition judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 1197-1210.