Backloading in the sequential lineup prevents within-lineup criterion shifts that undermine eyewitness identification performance

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied

Volumn 18, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 346-360

  Horry, Ruth ^a   Palmer, Matthew A ^a,b   Brewer, Neil ^a  

^a FLINDERS UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TASMANIA   (Australia)

Author keywords

Backloading; Eyewitness identification; Response bias; Sequential lineup

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; CRIME; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; RECALL; RECOGNITION; VERY ELDERLY;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; CRIME; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MENTAL RECALL; MIDDLE AGED; RECOGNITION (PSYCHOLOGY);

EID: 84874694027     PISSN: 1076898X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/a0029779     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Bates, D., Maechler, M., & Bolker, B. (2011). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using s4 classes. Available at www.r-project.org
2. Brewer, N., Keast, A., & Rishworth, A. (2002). The confidence-accuracy relationship in eyewitness identification: The effects of reflection and disconfirmation on correlation and calibration. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 8, 44-56. doi:10.1037/1076-898X.8.1.44
3. Brewer, N., & Wells, G. L. (2006). The confidence-accuracy relationship in eyewitness identification: Effects of lineup instructions, foil similarity, and target-absent base rates. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 12, 11-30. doi:10.1037/1076-898X.12.1.11
4. 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. doi:10.1037/1076-898X.14.2.118
5. Clark, S. E. (2003). A memory and decision model for eyewitness identification. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 629-654. doi:10.1002/acp .891
6. Clark, S. E., & Davey, S. L. (2005). The target-to-foils shift in simultaneous and sequential lineups. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 151-172. doi:10.1007/s10979-005-2418-7
7. Clark, S. E., Erickson, M. A., & Breneman, J. (2011). Probative value of absolute and relative judgments in eyewitness identification. Law and Human Behavior, 35, 364-380. doi:10.1007/s10979-010-9245-1
8. Cutler, B. L., & Penrod, S. D. (1988). Improving the reliability of eyewitness identification: Lineup construction and presentation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 281-290. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.73.2.281
9. Duncan, M. J. (2006). A signal detection model of compound decision tasks (Tech. Rep. No. TR2006-256). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Defence Research and Development Canada.
10. Flowe, H. D., & Ebbesen, E. B. (2007). The effect of lineup member similarity on recognition accuracy in simultaneous and sequential lineups. Law and Human Behavior, 31, 33-52. doi:10.1007/s10979-006-9045-9
11. Goodsell, C. A., Gronlund, S. D., & Carlson, C. A. (2010). Exploring the sequential lineup advantage using WITNESS. Law and Human Behavior, 34, 445-459. doi:10.1007/s10979-009-9215-7
12. Gronlund, S. D., Carlson, C. A., Dailey, S. B., & Goodsell, C. A. (2009). Robustness of the sequential lineup advantage. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 15, 140-152. doi:10.1037/a0015082
13. Horry, R., Memon, A., Wright, D. B., & Milne, R. (2012). Predictors of eyewitness identification decisions from video lineups in England: A field study. Law and Human Behavior, 36, 257-265. doi:10.1037/ h0093959
14. Humphries, J. E., Holliday, R. E., & Flowe, H. D. (2012). Faces in motion: Age-related changes in eyewitness identification performance in simultaneous, sequential, and elimination video lineups. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26, 149-158. doi:10.1002/acp.1808
15. Juslin, P., Olsson, N., & Winman, A. (1996). Calibration and diagnosticity of confidence in eyewitness identification: Comments on what can be inferred from the low confidence-accuracy correlation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 13041316. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.22.5.1304
16. Kassin, S. M., 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. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.56.5.405
17. Klobuchar, A., Steblay, N. K. M., & Caligiuri, H. L. (2006). Improving eyewitness identifications: Hennepin County's blind sequential lineup pilot project. Cardozo Public Law, Policy, and Ethics Journal, 2, 381414.
18. Kneller, W., Memon, A., & Stevenage, S. (2001). Simultaneous and sequential lineups: Decision processes of accurate and inaccurate eyewitnesses. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 15, 659-671. doi:10.1002/acp .739
19. Koriat, A., Lichtenstein, S., & Fischhoff, B. (1980). Reasons for confidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6, 107-118. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.6.2.107
20. Laufer, W. S. (1995). The rhetoric of innocence. Washington Law Review, 70, 338-339.
21. Levi, A. M. (1998). Protecting innocent defendants, nailing the guilty: A modified sequential lineup. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 12, 265-275. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199806)12:3<265::AID-ACP515>3.0 .CO;2-O
22. Lindsay, R. C. L., Lea, J. A., & Fulford, J. A. (1991). Sequential lineup presentation: Technique matters. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 741-745. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.76.5.741
23. Lindsay, R. C. L., Mansour, J. K., Beaudry, J. L., Leach, A. M., & Bertrand, M. I. (2009). Beyond sequential presentation: Misconceptions and misrepresentations of sequential lineups. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 14, 31-34. doi:10.1348/135532508X382104
24. Lindsay, R. C. L., & Wells, G. L. (1985). Improving eyewitness identifications from lineups: Simultaneous versus sequential lineup presentation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 556-564. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.70.3.556
25. Malpass, R. S. (2006). A policy evaluation of simultaneous and sequential lineups. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 12, 394-418. doi:10.1037/ 1076-8971.12.4.394
26. Malpass, R. S., Tredoux, C. G., Compo, N. S., McQuiston-Surrett, D., MacLin, O. H., Zimmerman, L. A., & Topp, L. D. (2008). Study space analysis for policy development. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 789-801. doi:10.1002/acp.1483
27. Malpass, R. S., Tredoux, C. G., & McQuiston-Surrett, D. (2009). Public policy and sequential lineups. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 14, 1-12. doi:10.1348/135532508X384102
28. McQuiston-Surrett, D., 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. doi:10.1037/1076-8971.12.2.137
29. Meissner, C. A., Tredoux, C. G., Parker, J. F., & MacLin, O. H. (2005). Eyewitness decisions in simultaneous and sequential lineups: A dualprocess signal detection theory analysis. Memory & Cognition, 33, 783-792. doi:10.3758/BF03193074
30. Memon, A., & Gabbert, F. (2003). Unravelling the effects of sequential presentation in culprit-present lineups. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 703-714. doi:10.1002/acp.909
31. Mosteller, F., & Tukey, J. W. (1968). Data analysis including statistics. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (pp. 80-203). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
32. Palmer, M. A., & Brewer, N. (2012). Sequential lineup presentation promotes less-biased criterion setting but does not improve discriminability. Law and Human Behavior, 36, 247-255. doi:10.1037/h0093923
33. Palmer, M. A., Brewer, N., McKinnon, A. C., & Weber, N. (2010). Phenomenological reports diagnose accuracy of eyewitness identification decisions. Acta Psychologica, 133, 137-145. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy .2009.11.002
34. Palmer, M. A., Brewer, N., & Weber, N. (2010). Postidentification feedback affects subsequent eyewitness identification performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 16, 387-398. doi:10.1037/ a0021034
35. Palmer, M. A., Brewer, N., Weber, N., & Nagesh, A. (2012). The confidence-accuracy relationship for eyewitness identification decisions: Effects of exposure duration, retention interval, and divided attention. Manuscript submitted for publication.
36. Sauer, J. D., Brewer, N., & Wells, G. L. (2008). Is there a magical time boundary for diagnosing eyewitness identification accuracy in sequential line-ups? Legal and Criminological Psychology, 13, 123-135. doi: 10.1348/135532506X159203
37. Sauer, J., Brewer, N., Zweck, T., & Weber, N. (2010). The effect of retention interval on the confidence-accuracy relationship for eyewitness identification. Law and Human Behavior, 34, 337-347. doi:10.1007/ s10979-009-9192-x
38. Sauerland, M., & Sporer, S. L. (2009). Fast and confident: Postdicting eyewitness identification accuracy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 15, 46-62. doi:10.1037/a0014560
39. Schwartz, J. (2011, September 18). Changes to police lineup procedures cut eyewitness mistakes, study says. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/us/changes-to-police-lineup-procedures-cut-eyewitness-mistakes-study-says.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&ref=falsearrestsconvictionsandimprisonments&adxnnlx=1322521516-GMIT2SraikZu4Tm47AXebQ
40. Sporer, S. L., Penrod, S., Read, D., & Cutler, B. (1995). Choosing, confidence, and accuracy: A meta-analysis of the confidence-accuracy relation in eyewitness identification studies. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 315-327. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.118.3.315
41. Steblay, N. K., Dietrich, H. L., Ryan, S. L., Raczynski, J. L., & James, K. A. (2011). Sequential lineup laps and eyewitness accuracy. Law and Human Behavior, 35, 262-274. doi:10.1007/s10979-010-9236-2
42. 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 & Human Behavior, 25, 459-473. doi: 10.1023/A:1012888715007
43. Steblay, N., Dysart, J. E., & Wells, G. L. (2011). Seventy-two tests of the sequential lineup superiority effect: A meta-analysis and policy discus-sion. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 17, 99-139. doi:10.1037/ a0021650
44. Tredoux, C. G. (1999). Statistical considerations when determining measures of lineup size and lineup bias. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13, . doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199911)13:1+3.0 .CO;2-1S9-S26
45. Tryon, W. W. (2001). Evaluating statistical difference, equivalence, and indeterminacy using inferential confidence intervals: An integrated alternative method of conducting null hypothesis statistical tests. Psychological Methods, 6, 371-386. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.6.4.371
46. Weber, N., & Brewer, N. (2006). Positive versus negative face recognition decisions: Confidence, accuracy, and response latency. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 17-31. doi:10.1002/acp.1166
47. Wells, G. L. (1984). The psychology of lineup identifications. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 14, 89-103. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1984 .tb02223.x
48. Wells, G. L. (1993). What do we know about eyewitness identification? American Psychologist, 48, 553-571. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.48.5.553
49. Wells, G. L., Steblay, N. K., & Dysart, J. E. (2011). A test of the simultaneous vs. sequential lineup methods: An initial report of the AJS national eyewitness identification field studies. Des Moines, IA: American Judicature Society.
50. Wilcock, R. A., Bull, R., & Vrij, A. (2005). Aiding the performance of older eyewitnesses: Enhanced non-biased line-up instructions and line-up presentation. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 12, 129-140. doi:10.1375/pplt.2005.12.1.129
51. Wright, D. B., Gabbert, F., Memon, A., & London, K. (2008). Changing the criterion for memory conformity in free recall and recognition. Memory, 16, 137-148. doi:10.1080/09658210701836174
52. Wright, D. B., & London, K. (2009). Multilevel modelling: Beyond the basic applications. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 62, 439-456. doi:10.1348/000711008X327632