LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Lindsay, R C L; Mansour, Jamal K; Beaudry, J L; Leach, A-M; Bertrand, M I (2009)
Publisher: Wiley-Blackwell
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects:
Sequential lineups were offered as an alternative to the traditional simultaneous lineup. Sequential lineups reduce incorrect lineup selections; however, the accompanying loss of correct identifications has resulted in controversy regarding adoption of the technique. We discuss the procedure and research relevant to (1) the pattern of results found using sequential versus simultaneous lineups; (2) reasons (theory) for differences in witness responses; (3) two methodological issues; and (4) implications for policy decisions regarding the adoption of sequential lineups.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Beaudry, J. L., Leach, A. M., Mansour, J. K., Bertrand, M. I., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (2006, March). The element of surprise: The impact of participants' knowledge of a subsequent lineup task. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society, St. Petersburg, Florida.
    • Beaudry, J. L., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (2006). Current identification procedure practices: A survey of Ontario police officers. Canadian Journal of Police and Security Services, 4, 178-183.
    • Behrman, B. W., & Davey, S. L. (2001). Eyewitness identification in actual criminal cases: An archival analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 475-491.
    • Brigham, J. C., Bennett, L. B., Meissner, C. A., & Mitchell, T. L. (2007). The influence of race on eyewitness memory. In R. Lindsay, R. Ross, D. Read, & M. Toglia (Eds.), Handbook of eyewitness psychology: Memory for people (Vol. 2, pp. 257-281). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.
    • Charman, S., & Wells, G. L. (2007). Applied lineup theory. In R. Lindsay, R. Ross, D. Read, & M. Toglia (Eds.), Handbook of eyewitness psychology: Memory for people (pp. 219-254). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.
    • Clark, S. E. (2003). A memory and decision model for eyewitness identification. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 629-654.
    • Clark, S. E., & Wells, G. L. (2008). On the diagnosticity of multiple-witness identifications. Law and Human Behavior, 32, 402-422.
    • Cory, P. (2001). The inquiry regarding Thomas Sophonow. Winnipeg, MB: Manitoba Justice.
    • Devlin, P. (1976). Report to the Secretary of State for the Home Department of the Department Committee on Evidence of Identification in Criminal Cases. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
    • Dupuis, P. R., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (2007). Radical alternatives to traditional lineups. In R. Lindsay, R. Ross, D. Read, & M. Toglia (Eds.), Handbook of eyewitness psychology: Memory for people (Vol. 2, pp. 179-200). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.
    • 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.
    • Gronlund, S. D. (2004). Sequential lineups: Shift in criterion or decision strategy? Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 234.
    • Kassin, S. M., & Gudjonsson, G. H. (2004). The psychology of confessions: A review of the literature and issues. Psychological Science in the Public Interest. Special Issue: The Psychology of Confessions, 5, 33-67.
    • Kneller, W., Memon, A., & Stevenage, S. (2001). Simultaneous and sequential lineups: Decision processes of accurate and inaccurate eyewitnesses. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 15, 659-671.
    • Levi, A. M. (1998). Protecting innocent defendants, nailing the guilty: A modified sequential lineup. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 12, 265-275.
    • Lindsay, R. C. L. (2003, July). Radical alternatives to traditional identification procedures. Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, Aberdeen, Scotland.
    • Lindsay, R. C. L., & Bellinger, K. (1999). Alternatives to the sequential lineup: The importance of controlling the pictures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 315-321.
    • Lindsay, R. C. L., Brigham, J. C., Malpass, R. S., & Ross, D. F. (2003, July). Cross-race identification from simultaneous and sequential lineups. Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, Aberdeen, Scotland.
    • Lindsay, R. C. L., Lea, J., & Fulford, J. (1991). Sequential lineup presentation: Technique matters. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 741-745.
    • Lindsay, R. C. L., Lea, J. A., Nosworthy, G. J., Fulford, J. A., Hector, J., LeVan, V., et al. (1991). Biased lineups: Sequential presentation reduces the problem. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 796-802.
    • Lindsay, R. C. L., Pozzulo, J. D., Craig, W., Lee, K., & Corber, S. (1997). Simultaneous lineups, sequential lineups, and showups: Eyewitness identification decisions of adults and children. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 404-411.
    • Lindsay, R. C. L., Semmler, C., Weber, N., Brewer, N., & Lindsay, M. R. (2006, March). Distance and eyewitness identification accuracy: Opposition to the 15 meter rule. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society, St. Petersburg, Florida.
    • Lindsay, R.C.L. & Turtle, J. (1999, October). Best practices for suspect identification: Blind sequential lineup procedures. Paper presented at the meeting of the Criminal Investigative Best Practices Symposium, Ottawa, Ontario.
    • Lindsay, R. C. L., Wallbridge, H., & Drennan, D. (1987). Do the clothes make the man? An exploration of the effect of lineup attire on eyewitness accuracy. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science. Special Issue: Forensic Psychology, 19, 463-478.
    • Lindsay, R. C. L., & Wells, G. (1980). What price justice? Exploring the relationship of lineup fairness to identification accuracy. Law and Human Behavior, 4, 303-313.
    • 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.
    • Malpass, R. S., Tredoux, C., & McQuiston-Surrett, D. (2009). Public policy and sequential lineups. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 14, 1-12.
    • 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.
    • Meissner, C. A., Tredoux, C., Parker, J. F., & MacLin, O. (2005). Eyewitness decisions in simultaneous and sequential lineups: A dual-process signal detection theory analysis. Memory and Cognition, 33, 783-792.
    • Memon, A., Bartlett, J., Rose, R., & Gray, C. (2003). The aging eyewitness: Effects of age on face, delay, and source-memory ability. Journals of Gerontology: Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 58B, 338-345.
    • Memon, A., & Gabbert, F. (2003). Improving the identification accuracy of senior witnesses: Do prelineup questions and sequential testing help? Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 341-347.
    • Mewhort, D. J. K., & Johns, E. E. (2005). Sharpening the echo: An iterative-resonance model for short-term recognition memory. Memory, 13, 300-307.
    • Parker, J. F., & Ryan, V. (1993). An attempt to reduce guessing behavior in children's and adults' eyewitness identifications. Law and Human Behavior, 17, 11-26.
    • Paterson, H. M., & Kemp, R. I. (2006). Co-witness talk: A survey of eyewitness discussion. Psychology, Crime, and law, 12, 181-191.
    • Penrod, S. (2006, March). Eyewitness guessing and choosing. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society, St. Petersburg, FL.
    • Penrod, S., & Bornstein, B. H. (2007). Generalizing eyewitness reliability research. In R. Lindsay, R. Ross, D. Read, & M. Toglia (Eds.), Handbook of eyewitness psychology: Memory for people (Vol. 2, pp. 529-556). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.
    • Phillips, M. R., McAuliff, B. D., Kovera, M. B., & Cutler, B. L. (1999). Double-blind photoarray administration as a safeguard against investigator bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 940-951.
    • Pozzulo, J. D., & Balfour, J. (2006). Children's and adults' eyewitness identification accuracy when a culprit changes his appearance: Comparing simultaneous and elimination lineup procedures. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 11, 25-34.
    • Pozzulo, J. D., & Marciniak, S. (2006). Comparing identification procedures when the perpetrator has changed appearance. Psychology. Crime and Law, 12, 429-438.
    • Pryke, S., Lindsay, R. C. L., Dysart, J. E., & DuPuis, P. (2004). Multiple independent identification decisions: A method of calibrating eyewitness identification accuracy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 73-84.
    • Sporer, S. L. (1993). Eyewitness identification accuracy, confidence, and decision times in simultaneous and sequential lineups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 22-33.
    • Steblay, N. (1997). Social influence in eyewitness recall: A meta-analytic review of lineup instruction effects. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 283-297.
    • Steblay, N. (2007, March). 2001 รพ 6: An updated meta-analysis of eyewitness lineup performance under sequential versus simultaneous formats. Paper presented at Off the Witness Stand: Using Psychology in the Practice of Justice, CUNY, New York, NY.
    • Steblay, N., Dysart, J. D., Fulero, S., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (2001). Eyewitness accuracy rates in sequential and simultaneous lineup presentation: A meta-analytic comparison. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 459-474.
    • Technical Working Group for Eyewitness Evidence (1999). Eyewitness evidence: A guide for law enforcement. Washington, D. C.: United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.
    • Tollestrup, P. A., Turtle, J. W., & Yuille, J. C. (1994). Actual victims and witnesses to robbery and fraud: An archival analysis. In D. F. Ross, J. D. Read, & M. P. Toglia (Eds.), Adult eyewitness testimony: Current trends and developments (pp. 144-160). New York: Cambridge University Press.
    • Wells, G. L. (1984). The psychology of lineup identifications. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 14, 89-103.
    • Wells, G. L., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (1980). On estimating the diagnosticity of eyewitness nonidentifications. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 776-784.
    • Wells, G. L., & Turtle, J. W. (1986). Eyewitness identification: The importance of lineup models. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 320-329.
    • Wright, D. B., & McDaid, A. T. (1996). Comparing system and estimator variables using data from real line-ups. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, 75-84.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article