Public policy and sequential lineups

Legal and Criminological Psychology

Volumn 14, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 1-12

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

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

^b UNIVERSITY OF CAPE TOWN   (South Africa)

^c ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY WEST   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CRIMINAL JUSTICE; CRIMINAL LAW; DECISION MAKING; LAW ENFORCEMENT; LEGAL EVIDENCE; MEMORY; OFFENDER; POLICE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RECOGNITION; WITNESS;

EID: 67650003069     PISSN: 13553259     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1348/135532508X384102     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1966). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago: Rand McNally.
2. Carlson, C. A., Gronlund, S. D., & Clark, S. E. (2008). Lineup composition, suspect position, and the sequential lineup advantage. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 14, 118-128.
3. Clark, S. E. (2005). A re-examination of the effects of biased lineup instructions in eyewitness identification. Law and Human Behavior, 29(5), 575-604.
4. 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.
5. Clark, S. E., Howell, R. T., & Davey, S. L. (2008). Regularities in eyewitness identification. Law and Human Behavior, 32, 187-218.
6. Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis for field settings. Chicago, Illinois: Rand McNally.
7. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (1993). 509 US 579.
8. 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(6), 687-706.
9. Ebbesen E. B., & Flowe H. (2002). Simultaneous v. sequential lineups: What do we really know? Retrieved from http://www.psy.ucsd.edu/Neebbesen/SimSeq.htm on 15 October 2008.
10. Geller, W. A. (1997). Suppose we were really serious about police departments becoming learning organizations? National Institute of Justice Journal, 234, 2-8.
11. Gronlund, S. D. (2005). Sequential lineup advantage: Contributions of distinctiveness and recollection. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 23-37.
12. Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (1990). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications.
13. Levi, A. M., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (2001). Lineup and photospread procedures: Issues concerning policy recommendations. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7, 776-790.
14. Lindsay, R. C. L. (1999). Applying applied research: Selling the sequential line-up. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13, 219-225.
15. Lindsay, R. C., Lea, J. A., & Fulford, J. A. (1991). Sequential lineup presentation: Technique matters. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 741-745.
16. Lindsay, R. C., & Wells, G. L. (1985). Improving eyewitness identifications from lineups: Simultaneous versus sequential lineup presentation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 556-564.
17. Malpass, R. S. (2006a). A policy evaluation of simultaneous and sequential lineups. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 12(4), 394-418.
18. Malpass, R. S. (2006b). Notes on the illinois pilot program on sequential double-blind identification procedures. Public Interest Law Reporter, 11(2), 5-47 (partial pages).
19. 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 Malpass, R. S. (Eds.), Simultaneous or sequential lineups? New data, new perspectives, new looks at old questions, and a study space based policy analysis. Symposium presented at the meetings of the American Psychology & Law Society, Edinburgh.
20. Malpass R. S., & Ross, S. J. (2008, June) Implications of existing field and archival studies for field study design. Presented at the meeting of the eyewitness identification study group. National Institute of Justice, Washington, D.C.
21. Malpass R. S, Tredoux C. G., & McQuiston-Surrett D. E. (2007). Lineup construction and lineup fairness. In R. C. L. Lindsay, D. F. Ross, J. D. Read, & M. P. Toglia (Eds.), The handbook of eyewitness psychology (Vol. II): Memory for people. Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates.
22. Malpass, R. S., Tredoux, C. G., Schreiber Compo, N., McQuiston-Surrett, D., MacLin, O. H., Zimmerman, L. A., & Topp, L. D. (2008). Study space analysis for policy development. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22(6), 789-801.
23. McQuiston-Surrett, D., Malpass, R. S., & Tredoux, C. G. (2006). Sequential versus simultaneous lineups: A review of methods, data, and theory. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 12(2), 137-169.
24. 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 & Cognition, 33, 783-792.
25. Miller, G. A. (1969). Psychology as a means of promoting human welfare. American Psychologist, 24, 1063-1075.
26. Penrod S. (2003). Eyewitness identification evidence: How well are witnesses and police performing? American Bar Association Criminal Justice Section. Retrieved 7/4/08 from http://www.abanet.org/crimjust/ spring2003/eyewitness.html
27. Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research (Revised edition). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
28. Ross, S. J., & Malpass, R. S. (2008). Law and Human Behavior. Moving forward: Response to 'Studying eyewitness investigations in the field', 32(1), 16-21.
29. Ross S. J., & Malpass R. S. (2008, March). Improved methodological standards for field evaluations of eyewitness identification procedures. Paper presented at the meetings of the American Psychology-Law Society, Jacksonville, FL.
30. Steblay N. (2007, March). 2001 + 6: An updated meta-analysis of eyewitness lineup performance under sequential versus simultaneous formats. Paper presented at the 'Off the witness stand: Using psychology in the practice of justice' meeting, New York, NY.
31. 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.
32. Technical working group on eyewitness evidence (1999). Eyewitness evidence: A guide for law enforcement. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice (i-x, 1-44). URL: http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/ nij/178240.pdf
33. Wells, G. L. (1984). The psychology of lineup identifications. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 14, 89-103.
34. Wells, G. L. (1993). What do we know about eyewitness identification? American Psychologist, 48, 553-571.
35. 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 photo spreads. Law and Human Behavior, 22(6), 603-647.
36. Williams, G., & Hammelman, H. A. (1963). Identification parades. Criminal Law Review, 479-482, 545-555.
37. 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(1), 69-82.