Recently in Lineup Administration Category

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.

The authors discuss the sequential superiority effect, and sequential lineups producing fewer mistaken identifications compared to simultaneous lineups. This article is a meta-analysis of research involving simultaneous and sequential lineups. The meta-analysis included data from 23 papers, but many of the studies were unpublished and from a single laboratory. First, they examined correct identifications across both target-present and target-absent lineups and found that sequential lineups produced more correct decisions than simultaneous lineups. They then separated lineups into target-present and target-absent to examine accuracy rates.

Their main finding was that simultaneous lineups produce more correct identifications in target-present lineups, whereas sequential lineups produce more correct rejections in target-absent lineups. This finding means that the sequential lineup reduces false identification errors. These findings are discussed in terms of relative and absolute judgments in lineup administration, with simultaneous lineups allowing for more relative judgments, and sequential lineups allowing for more absolute judgments. Identification accuracy of choosers, participants who make a choice when viewing a lineup, was also examined. Simultaneous lineups tended to have higher choosing rates as compared to sequential lineups. The authors also examined a variety of moderator variables, the strongest of which was verbal descriptions. Verbal descriptions prior to lineup administration tended to eliminate the advantage of the simultaneous lineup for correct identifications.

The overall results indicated that the sequential superiority effect was supported. The issue of relative judgments was discussed because simultaneous lineups produce higher correct identifications, and this finding can be explained with the idea that participants are comparing lineup members to each other. However, absolute judgments of comparing each photograph individually to the participant's memory are believed to underlie sequential lineups. Correct identifications from simultaneous lineups are also discussed in terms of policy implications for police departments. The authors reason that simultaneous lineups lead participants to choose more in lineups, and this choosing may result in possibly correct guessing, which may be a potential problem in eyewitness identification.

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, 147-169.

The authors discuss the background of simultaneous and sequential lineups and present information about the sequential lineup generally being accepted by the research community. The authors stated that 81% of experts tended to be in agreement concerning the superiority of the sequential lineup. The authors expressed concerns about the Steblay meta-analysis and wanted to further examine the literature due to the potential policy implications that result from this line of research.

A meta-analysis of 37 research articles involving simultaneous and sequential lineups was conducted. The researchers examined a variety of variables, including confounding variables and moderator variables of simultaneous and sequential lineups. Issues arose concerning studies that underreported information about similarity of foils and counterbalancing of lineup photographs. They found that backloading and asking one versus multiple questions were confounding variables because they are rarely equated in both lineup procedures. Backloading is the process of presenting more filler photographs behind the actual photographs, even if this is done only by implication. In simultaneous lineups, a more general question is asked about all of the photographs, but sequential lineups have a question about whether each photograph is the perpetrator for every photograph. Zimmerman et al. (2006) found that when these two procedures are equated, the superiority effect tended to disappear.

Similarity, laboratory ID, stopping rule, and counterbalancing of photographs were found to be moderator variables. High similarity of lineup members tend to reduce correct identifications in sequential lineups, but counterbalancing was found to be the strongest moderator variable in the analysis. When lineups are not counterbalanced, there is no advantage found for correct identifications from simultaneous lineups. However, this advantage is found when the lineup is counterbalanced. Also, when a strict stopping rule is employed in study designs, the superiority effect also disappears. The authors also discussed how the differences that have been found with simultaneous and sequential lineups may vary with study methodology.

The authors discuss information on the relative and absolute decision processes that are thought to underlie decisions from simultaneous and sequential lineups. However, they also bring up the idea that these decision processes can be examined from other theories, including signal detection theory. The authors advocate the position that the decision processes underlying simultaneous and sequential lineups are not well understood, and further research should be conducted to examine these issues. They also argue that the research involving sequential lineups may not be developed enough to advocate the implementation of it in real-world settings.

MacLin, O. H., Zimmerman, L. A., & Malpass, R. S. (2005). PC_Eyewitness and the sequential superiority effect: Computer-based lineup administration. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 303-321.

The effectiveness of PC_Eyewitness, which is a computer program that can be used to administer lineups, was compared to paper-and-pencil administration of lineups. This program has a variety of applications that can be useful to police departments.  Also, the results of these studies were being compared to other findings regarding simultaneous and sequential lineups, specifically the Steblay et al., 2001 meta-analysis. The first experiment was conducted with paper and pencil, whereas the second experiment was conducted with PC_Eyewitness.  In both experiments, participants viewed a simulated crime video, completed a filler task, and then viewed a simultaneous or sequential lineup. The first experiment found no differences between correct identifications between simultaneous and sequential lineups in target-present lineups. Also, the sequential lineup did not have an advantage for correct rejections. These findings partially replicated the findings of the Steblay et al., 2001 meta-analysis.

In the second experiment with PC_Eyewitness, the sequential lineup had more correct rejections, but there were no differences between correct identifications in the lineups. Choosing rates were also higher with simultaneous lineups. It was found that PC_Eyewitness was not different from the paper-and-pencil lineup administration. Also, the results of both of the experiments were compared to the earlier Steblay et al., 2001 meta-analysis. Some differences were observed, but the main findings were similar to the pattern of the results of the meta-analysis. One of the differences was that in the meta-analysis, simultaneous lineups produced more correct identifications, which did not occur in these experiments.

A discussion of the usefulness and advantages of PC_Eyewitness for police departments was also included. PC_Eyewitness can be modified to suit a department's particular needs, and it also can offer blind administration of lineups. The authors also discuss the differences between simultaneous and sequential lineups, and the idea that participants are more willing to make identifications in lineups, which may be an area for further research.

Clark, S. E., & Davey, S. L. (2005). The target-to-foils shift in simultaneous and sequential lineups. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 151-172.

These researchers were seeking to examine relative responding with the target-removed lineup, which was first employed by Wells (1993). They reasoned that since sequential lineups are not as influenced by relative decision processes, then the target-to-foil shift should be smaller in sequential lineups. The target-to-foil shift involves the idea that if participants picked the perpetrator in the target-present lineup, then they should reject the lineup when the target is removed from the lineup. However, participants tend to pick foils in the lineup instead of correctly rejecting the lineup, creating a target-to-foil shift.

They conducted two experiments to examine this question. Participants viewed a videotape of a crime, and then they viewed either a simultaneous or sequential lineup after a short delay. In the first experiment, they found that simultaneous and sequential lineups had equal target-to-foil shifts in lineups with the target removed. They also had interesting findings with order effects and similarity of foils to the target in the sequential lineup but not the simultaneous lineup, depending on the position in the lineup of one of the foils. When the next-best alternative was in the second position, many participants chose him, but the perpetrator had actually not been seen yet. So, the sequential advantage occurred only when the next-best alternative was shown after the perpetrator because participants had already identified the perpetrator.  

The authors were concerned about the similarity of the next-best alternative to the perpetrator in the first experiment, so they conducted a second experiment with a less similar foil. All the other procedures from the first experiment were the same in the second experiment. A target-to-foil shift occurred equally for both types of lineups again, which indicates that similar decision processes may underlie both types of lineups. Similar order effects occurred in the second experiment, even when the foil was less similar to the perpetrator. An interesting finding from the second experiment was a criterion shift occurred for the next-best alternative shown later in the lineup, indicating that some participants lowered their decision criterion to make an identification.

The authors discussed the findings about the similarity of the foils and made the argument that similarity of the foils may affect sequential lineup administration. Since the target-to-foil shift occurred for both lineup types, they argued that there is more to be discovered about the decision processes for these types of lineups.