Showups versus lineups: An evaluation using ROC analysis

Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition

Volumn 1, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 221-228

  Gronlund, Scott D ^a   Carlson, Curt A ^b   Neuschatz, Jeffrey S ^c   Goodsell, Charles A ^d   Wetmore, Stacy A ^a   Wooten, Alex ^c   Graham, Michael ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA   (United States)

^b TEXAS A AND M UNIVERSITY COMMERCE   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA IN HUNTSVILLE   (United States)

^d CANISIUS COLLEGE   (United States)

Author keywords

Eyewitness identification; Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analyses; Showups; Simultaneous and sequential lineups

Indexed keywords

EID: 84869866497     PISSN: 22113681     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jarmac.2012.09.003     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Bradley v. State, 264 SD.E.2d 332 (Ga. App. 1980).
2. Brewer N., Wells G.L. The confidence-accuracy relationship in eyewitness accuracy: Effects of lineup instructions, foil similarity, and target-absent base rates. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 2006, 12:11-30. 10.1037/1076-898X.12.1.11.
3. Carlson C.A., Gronlund S.D., Clark S.E. Lineup composition, suspect position, and the sequential lineup advantage. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 2008, 14(2):118-128. 10.1037/1076-898X.14.2.118.
4. Clark S.E. A memory and decision model for eyewitness identification. Applied Cognitive Psychology 2003, 17(6):629-654. 10.1002/acp.891.
5. Clark S.E. A re-examination of the effects of biased lineup instructions in eyewitness identification. Law and Human Behavior 2005, 29(4):395-424. 10.1007/s10979-005-5690-7.
6. Clark S.E. Blackstone and the balance of eyewitness identification evidence. Albany Law Review 2011, 75:1105-1156.
7. Clark S.E. Costs and benefits of eyewitness identification reform: Psychological science and public policy. Perspectives on Psychological Science 2012, 7(3):238-259. 10.1177/1745691612439584.
8. Clark S.E., Erickson M.A., Breneman J. Probative value of absolute and relative judgments in eyewitness identification. Law and Human Behavior 2011, 35(5):364-380. 10.1007/s10979-010-9245-1.
9. Clark S.E., Godfrey R.D. Eyewitness identification evidence and innocence risk. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2009, 16(1):22-42. 10.3758/PBR.16.1.22.
10. Clark S.E., Howell R.T., Davey S.L. Regularities in eyewitness identification. Law and Human Behavior 2008, 32(3):187-218. 10.1007/s10979-006-9082-4.
11. Clark S.E., Marshall T.E., Rosenthal R. Lineup administrator influences on eyewitness identification decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 2009, 15(1):63-75. 10.1037/a0015185.
12. Commonwealth v. Carter, 414 A.2d 369 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1979).
13. Cutler B.L., Daugherty B., Babu S., Hodges L., Van Wallendael L. Creating blind photoarrays using virtual human technology: A feasibility test. Police Quarterly 2009, 12(3):289-300. 10.1177/1098611109339892.
14. Dekle D.J., Beal C.R., Elliott R., Huneycutt D. Children as witnesses: A comparison of lineup versus showup identification methods. Applied Cognitive Psychology 1996, 10(1):1-12. 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199602)10:1<1::AID-ACP354>3.0.CO;2-Y.
15. Egan J.P. Recognition memory and the operating characteristic 1958, (Tech. Note AFCRC-TN-58-51), Hearing and Communication Laboratory, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.
16. Gonzalez R., Ellsworth P.C., Pembroke M. Response biases in lineups and showups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1993, 64(4):525-537. 10.1037/0022-3514.64.4.525.
17. Goodsell C.A., Gronlund S.D., Carlson C.A. Exploring the sequential lineup advantage using WITNESS. Law and Human Behavior 2010, 34(6):445-459. 10.1007/s10979-009-9215-7.
18. Goodsell, C. A. Wetmore, S. A., Neuschatz, J. S., & Gronlund, S. D. Are showups more biased than lineups? In B. L. Cutler (Ed.), Reform of Eyewitness Identification Procedures, in press.
19. Greathouse S.M., Kovera M.B. Instruction bias and lineup presentation moderate the effects of administrator knowledge on eyewitness identification. Law and Human Behavior 2009, 33(1):70-82. 10.1007/s10979-008-9136-x.
20. Gronlund, S. D., Anderson, S. M., & Perry, C. Presentation methods. In B. L. Cutler (Ed.), Reform of eyewitness identification procedures. APA Publications, in press.
21. Gronlund S.D., Carlson C.A., Dailey S.B., Goodsell C.A. Robustness of the sequential lineup advantage. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 2009, 15(2):140-152. 10.1037/a0015082.
22. Gronlund S.D., Goodsell C.A., Andersen S.M. Lineup procedures in eyewitness identification. Memory and law 2012, Oxford University Press, New York. L. Nadel, W. Sinnott-Armstrong (Eds.).
23. Haw R.M., Fisher R.P. Effects of administrator-witness contact on eyewitness identification accuracy. Journal of Applied Psychology 2004, 89(6):1106-1112. 10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.1106.
24. Lindsay R.C., Wells G.L. Improving eyewitness identifications from lineups: Simultaneous versus sequential lineup presentation. Journal of Applied Psychology 1985, 70(3):556-564. 10.1037/0021-9010.70.3.556.
25. Lusted L.B. Signal detectability and medical decision-making. Science 1971, 171:1217-1219.
26. McClish D.K. Analyzing a portion of the ROC curve. Medical Decision Making 1989, 9(3):190-195. 10.1177/0272989X8900900307.
27. 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.
28. Metz C.E. Basic principles of ROC analysis. Seminars in Nuclear Medicine 1978, 8(4):283-298.
29. Mickes, L., Flowe, H. D., & Wixted, J. T. Receiver operating characteristic analysis in the assessment of lineup-based eyewitness memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, in press.
30. Nieuwenhuis S., Forstmann B.U., Wagenmakers E.J. Erroneous analyses of interactions in neuroscience: A problem of significance. Nature Neuroscience 2011, 14:1105-1107.
31. Neuschatz, J. S., & Cutler, B. L. (2008). Eyewitness identification. In H. L. Roediger III (Series Ed.) & J. Byrne (Vol. Ed.), Cognitive psychology of memory. Vol. 2: Learning and memory: A comprehensive reference (4 Vols., pp. 845-865). Oxford: Elsevier.
32. Palmer M.A., Brewer N. Sequential presentation encourages less biased criterion setting but does not improve discriminability. Law and Human Behavior 2012, 10.1037/h0093923.
33. Pisano E.D., Gatsonis C., Hendrick E., Yaffe M., Baum J.K., Acharyya S., et al. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. New England Journal of Medicine 2005, 353:1773-1783.
34. Robin X., Turck N., Hainard A., Tiberti N., Lisacek F., Sanchez J.C., et al. pROC: An open-source package for R and S+ to analyze and compare ROC curves. BMC Bioinformatics 2011, 12(1):77. 10.1186/1471-2105-12-77.
35. Steblay N., Dysart J., Fulero S., Lindsay R.C.L. Eyewitness accuracy rates in sequential and simultaneous lineup presentations: A meta-analytic comparison. Law and Human Behavior 2001, 25(5):459-473. 10.1023/A:1012888715007.
36. Steblay N., Dysart J., Fulero S., Lindsay R.C.L. Eyewitness accuracy rates in police showup and lineup presentations: A meta-analytic comparison. Law and Human Behavior 2003, 27(5):523-540. 10.1023/A:1025438223608.
37. Steblay N.K., Dysart J.E., Wells G.L. Seventy-two tests of the sequential lineup superiority effect: A meta-analysis and policy discussion. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 2011, 17(1):99-139. 10.1037/a0021650.
38. Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 (1967).
39. Technical Working Group for Eyewitness Evidence Eyewitness evidence: A guide for law enforcement 1999, United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Washington, DC.
40. Tredoux C.G. Statistical inference on measures of lineup fairness. Law and Human Behavior 1998, 22:217-237.
41. United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967).
42. Wells G.L., Small M., Penrod S., Malpass R.S., Fulero S.M., Brimacombe C.A.E. Eyewitness identification procedures: Recommendations for lineups and photospreads. Law and Human Behavior 1998, 22(6):603-647. 10.1023/A:1025750605807.
43. Wixted J.T., Mickes L. The field of eyewitness memory should abandon probative value and embrace Receiver Operating Characteristic analysis. Perspectives on Psychological Science 2012, 7:275-278.
44. Wogalter M.S., Malpass R.S., Mcquiston D.E. A national survey of US police on preparation and conduct of identification lineups. Psychology, Crime & Law 2004, 10(1):69-82. 10.1080/10683160410001641873.
45. Yarmey A.D., Yarmey M.J., Yarmey A.L. Accuracy of eyewitness identification in showups and lineups. Law and Human Behavior 1996, 20(4):459-477. 10.1007/BF01498981.
46. Yonelinas A.P., Parks C.M. Receiver operating characteristics (ROCs) in recognition memory: A review. Psychological Bulletin 2007, 133(5):800-832.