Abstract
Issues regarding the fairness of lineups used for criminal identification are discussed in the context of a distinction between nominal size and functional size. Nominal size (the number of persons in the lineup) is less important for determining the fairness of a lineup than is functional size (the number of lineup members resembling the criminal). Functional size decreases to the extent that the nonsuspect members of the lineup are easily ruled out as not being suspected by the police. The extent to which the identification of the suspect can be considered an independently derived piece of incriminating evidence is positively related to functional size. Empirical estimates of functional size can be obtained through pictures of the corporal lineup from which mock witnesses make guesses of whom they believe the police suspect. A distinction is made between a functional size approach and hypothesis testing approaches. Uses of functional size notions in the court, by police, and in research are discussed.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Borchard, E. M.Convicting the innocent: Errors of criminal justice. New Haven: Yale, 1932.
Brigham, J. C., and Barkowitz, P. Do they all look alike? Experience, attitudes, and the ability to recognize faces.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1978,8, 306–318.
Buckhout, R. Eyewitness testimony.Scientific American, 1974,321, 23–31.
Doob, A. N., & Kirshenbaum, H. M. Bias in police lineups — Partial remembering.Journal of Police Science and Administration, 1973,1, 287–293.
Einhorn, H. J., & Hogarth, R. M. Confidence in judgment: Persistence of the illusion of validity.Psychological Review, 1978,85, 395–416.
Elliot, E.S., Wills, E. J., & Goldstein, A. G. The effects of discrimination training on the recognition of white and oriental faces.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 1973,2, 71–73.
Fanslow, M., How to bias an eyewitness: A review of research on expectancy applied to eyewitness identification testing.Social Action and the Law Newsletter, 1973,2, No. 3, 3–6.
Frank, J.Courts on trial. Princeton: Princeton University, 1949.
Hays, W. L.Statistics for the social sciences. New York: Holt, Rineheart, & Winston, 1973.
Katz, R., Vesel, B., Buckhout, R., & Wolft (Eds.) A reliability checklist for lineups.Social Action and the Law Newsletter, 1975,2, No. 3., 9–10.
Leippe, M. R., Wells, G. L., & Ostrom, T. M. Crime seriousness as a determinant of accuracy in eyewitness identification.Journal of Applied Psychology, 1978,63, 345–351.
Levine, F. & Tapp, J. The psychology of criminal identification: The gap from Wade to Kirby.University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 1973,5, 1079–1131.
Malpass, R. S., & Kravitz, J. Recognition for faces of own and other race.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1969,13, 330–334.
Marshall, J.,Law and psychology in conflict. New York: Doubleday-Anchor, 1969.
Massen v. State, 41 Wis. 2d 245, 1969.
People v. Chambers, 112 Ill. App. 2d 347, 1969.
People v. Stanton, 274 Cal. App. 2d 13, 1969.
State v. Burch, 284 Minn. 300, 1969.
State v. Parker, 282 Minn. 343, 1969.
Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 263, 1967.
Wall, P.,Eyewitness identification in criminal cases. Springfield Illinois: Charles C. Thomas. 1965.
Wells, G. L. Applied eyewitness-testimony research: System variables and estimator variables.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1978,36, 1546–1557.
Wells, G. L., Lindsay, R.C.L. & Ferguson, T.. Accuracy, confidence, and juror perceptions in eyewitness identification.Journal of Applied Psychology, 1979,64, 440–448.
Woocher, F. D. Did your eyes deceive you? Expert psychological testimony on the unreliability of eyewitness identification.Stanford Law Review, 1977,29, 969–1030.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
About this article
Cite this article
Wells, G.L., Leippe, M.R. & Ostrom, T.M. Guidelines for empirically assessing the fairness of a lineup. Law Hum Behav 3, 285–293 (1979). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01039807
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01039807