After viewing a staged crime under varying levels of encoding optimality, eyewitnesses made identifications from lineups that were either presented to them as a simultaneous line of people, or individually, in sequence. Lineups did not contain the perpetrator of the staged crime, and were purposefully constructed to have varying levels of bias. There was an interaction between encoding optimality and type of lineup, with sequential-presentation lineups leading to more correct rejections than simultaneous-presentation lineups for moderate encoding optimality. Sequential-presentation lineups did not provide good protection against mistaken identifications in the two other conditions of encoding optimality. Measures of the fairness of the lineups significantly predicted identification rates for both simultaneous-presentation lineups and sequential-presentation lineups, regardless of encoding optimality.
BrighamJ. C.ReadyD. J.SpierS. A. (1990). Standards for evaluating the fairness of photograph lineups. Basic and Applied Psychology, 11(2), 149–163.
2.
ChiroroP.ValentineT. (1995). An investigation of the contact hypothesis of the own-race bias in face recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48A, 879–894.
3.
CoreyD.MalpassR. S.McQuistonD. E. (1999). Parallelism in eyewitness and mock witness identifications. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13, S41–S58.
4.
CutlerB. L.PenrodS. D. (1988). Improving the reliability of eyewitness identification: Lineup construction and presentation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(2), 281–290.
5.
‘Justice of the Peace’ (1926). Identification. South African Law Journal, 43, 288.
LeviA. M. (1999). An honourable discharge for line-up fairness measurement. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13, S121–S124.
8.
LeviA. M.LindsayR. C. L. (2001). Lineup and photospread procedures: Issues concerning policy recommendations. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7, 776–790.
9.
LindsayR. C. L. (1999). Applying applied research: Selling the sequential line-up. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13, 219–225.
10.
LindsayR. C. L.WellsG. L. (1980). What price justice? Exploring the relationship of lineup fairness to identification accuracy. Law and Human Behavior, 4, 303–313.
11.
LindsayR. C. L.WellsG. L. (1985). Improving eyewitness identifications from lineups: Simultaneous versus sequential lineup presentation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70(3), 556–564.
12.
LindsayR. C. L.LeaJ. A.NosworthyG. L.FulfordJ. A.HectorJ.le VanV.SeabrookC. (1991). Biased lineups: Sequential presentation reduces the problem. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 796–802.
13.
LindsayR. C. L.SmithS. M.PrykeS. (1999). Measures of lineup fairness: Do they postdict identification accuracy?. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13, S93–S107.
14.
LuusC. A. E.WellsG. L. (1991). Eyewitness identification and the selection of distractors for lineups. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 43–57.
15.
MalpassR. S. (1981). Effective size and defendant bias in eyewitness identification lineups. Law and Human Behavior, 5(4), 299–309.
16.
MalpassR. S.DevineP. G. (1983). Measuring the fairness of eyewitness identification in lineups. In MalpassR. S.DevineP. G. (Eds.), Evaluating witness evidence (pp. 81–102). London: Wiley.
17.
MalpassR. S.TredouxC. G.McQuiston-SurrettD. E. (2007). Lineup construction and lineup fairness. In LindsayR.RossD. F.ReadJ. D.TogliaM. P. (Eds.), Handbook of eyewitness psychology, vol. 2: Memory for people (pp. 155–178). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
18.
McQuistonD. E.MalpassR. S. (2002). Validity of the mockwitness paradigm: Testing the assumptions. Law and Human Behavior, 26(4), 439–453.
19.
McQuiston-SurrettD. E.MalpassR. S.TredouxC. G. (2006). Sequential vs. simultaneous lineups: A review of methods, data, and theory. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 12(2), 137–169.
20.
MeissnerC. A.TredouxC. G.ParkerJ. F.MacLinO. H. (2005). Eyewitness decisions in simultaneous and sequential lineups: A dual-process signal detection theory analysis. Memory & Cognition, 33, 783–792.
21.
PhillipsM. R.McAuliffB. D.KoveraM. B.CutlerB. L. (1999). Double-blind photoarray administration as a safeguard against investigator bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 940–951.
22.
RosenthalR.RosnowR. L. (1991). Essentials of behavioral research: Methods and data analysis.New York: McGraw Hill.
23.
SmithS. M.LindsayR. C. L.PrykeS. (2000). Postdictors of eyewitness errors: Can false identifications be diagnosed?. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 542–550.
24.
SmithS. M.LindsayR. C. L.PrykeS. (2001). Postdictors of eyewitness errors: Can false identifications be diagnosed in the cross race situation?. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 5, 153–169.
25.
SteblayN.DysartJ.FuleroS.LindsayR. C. L. (2001). Eyewitness accuracy rates in sequential and simultaneous lineup presentations: A meta-analytic comparison. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 459–474.
26.
TredouxC. (1998). Statistical inference on measures of lineup fairness. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 217–237.
27.
TredouxC. (1999). Statistical considerations when determining measures of lineup size and lineup bias. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13, S9–S26.
28.
TredouxC. G.ChiroroP. (2005). Eyewitness testimony. In TredouxC. G.FosterD. H.AllanA.CohenA.WassenaarD. (Eds.), Psychology and law (pp. 194–226). Cape Town: Juta.
29.
WellsG. L.BradfieldA. L. (1999). Measuring the goodness of lineups. Parameter estimation, question effects, and limits to the mock witness paradigm. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13, S27–S39.
30.
WellsG. L.LeippeM. R.OstromT. M. (1979). Guidelines for empirically assessing the fairness of a lineup. Law and Human Behavior, 3, 285–293.
31.
WrightD. B.BoydC. E.TredouxC. G. (2003). Inter-racial contact and the own race bias for face recognition in South Africa and England. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 365–373.
