A Model of Position Effects in the Sequential Lineup

What is the effect of placing the suspect in different positions in a sequential lineup? To explore this question, we developed and applied a model called the Independent Sequential Lineup model which analyzes a sequential lineup in terms of both identification position, the position at which the witness identifies a lineup item as the target, and target position, the position at which the target or suspect appears. We conducted a large-scale online eyewitness memory experiment with 7,204 participants each of whom was tested on a 6-item sequential lineup with an explicit stopping rule. The model fit these data well and revealed systematic effects of lineup position on underlying discriminability and response criteria. We also fit the model to data from a similar pair of experiments conducted recently by Wilson, Donnelly, Christenfeld and Wixted (2019; Journal of Memory and Language, 104, 108-125) both with and without application of a stopping rule. In all data sets, if a stopping rule is applied, underlying discriminability was found to be constant, or to increase slightly, across target position. In the absence of a stopping rule, discriminability was found to decrease substantially. We also observed a substantial increase in response criteria following presentation of the target. We discuss the implications of these findings for current theories of recognition memory and current applications of the sequential lineup in different jurisdictions.

“Only your first yes will count”: The impact of pre-lineup instructions on sequential lineup decisions

When administering sequential lineups, researchers often inform their participants that only their first yes response will count. This instruction differs from the original sequential lineup protocol and from how sequential lineups are conducted in practice. Participants (N = 896) viewed a videotaped mock crime and viewed a simultaneous lineup, a sequential lineup with a first-yes-counts instruction, or a sequential control lineup (with no first-yes-counts instruction); the lineup was either target-present or target-absent. Participants in the first-yes-counts condition were less likely to identify the suspect and more likely to reject the lineup than participants in the simultaneous and sequential control conditions, suggesting a conservative criterion shift. The diagnostic value of suspect identifications, as measured by partial Area Under the Curve, was lower in the first-yes-counts lineup than in the simultaneous lineup. Results were qualitatively similar for other metrics of diagnosticity, though the differences were not statistically significant. Differences between the simultaneous and sequential control lineups were negligible on all outcomes. The first-yes-counts instruction undermines sequential lineup performance and produces an artefactual simultaneous lineup advantage. Researchers should adhere to sequential lineup protocols that maximize diagnosticity and that would feasibly be implemented in practice, allowing them to draw more generalizable conclusions from their data.

Do Sequential Lineups Impair Discriminability?

The debate regarding the best way to test and measure eyewitness memory has dominated the eyewitness literature for more than thirty years. We argue that to resolve this debate requires the development and application of appropriate measurement models. In this study we develop models of simultaneous and sequential lineup presentations and use these to compare the procedures in terms of discriminability and response bias. We tested a key prediction of the diagnostic feature detection hypothesis that discriminability should be greater for simultaneous than sequential lineups. We fit the models to the corpus of studies originally described by Palmer and Brewer (2012, Law and Human Behavior, 36(3), 247-255) and to data from a new experiment. The results of both investigations showed that discriminability did not differ between the two procedures, while responses were more conservative for sequential presentation compared to simultaneous presentation. We conclude that the two procedures do not differ in the efficiency with which they allow eyewitness memory to be expressed. We discuss the implications of this for the diagnostic feature detection hypothesis and other sequential lineup procedures used in current jurisdictions.

An ERP-based Guilty Knowledge Test for Sequential Lineups

Witnesses to crimes are sometimes reluctant to identify the culprit in a lineup (e.g., for fear of retribution). We introduce an ERP-based guilty knowledge test for sequential lineup identifications, using an oddball paradigm to evoke the P300 component when a witness sees a photo of a culprit compared to those evoked by an innocent familiar face. At the group level, clear differences were found between P300 amplitudes evoked by the culprit’s face and the innocent filler face. At the individual level, the participants’ waveforms were less diagnostic. This method of eyewitness assessment may prove useful if the procedure can be improved in ways that clarify P300 amplitudes for individual participants. Success in this endeavor would be best applied with witnesses who recognize the culprit easily but are compelled to claim falsely that they do not.