Law and Human Behavior

, Volume 3, Issue 4, pp 285–293 | Cite as

Guidelines for empirically assessing the fairness of a lineup

  • Gary L. Wells
  • Michael R. Leippe
  • Thomas M. Ostrom


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.


Social Psychology Hypothesis Testing Empirical Estimate Testing Approach Nominal Size 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Borchard, E. M.Convicting the innocent: Errors of criminal justice. New Haven: Yale, 1932.Google Scholar
  2. 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.Google Scholar
  3. Buckhout, R. Eyewitness testimony.Scientific American, 1974,321, 23–31.Google Scholar
  4. Doob, A. N., & Kirshenbaum, H. M. Bias in police lineups — Partial remembering.Journal of Police Science and Administration, 1973,1, 287–293.Google Scholar
  5. Einhorn, H. J., & Hogarth, R. M. Confidence in judgment: Persistence of the illusion of validity.Psychological Review, 1978,85, 395–416.Google Scholar
  6. 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.Google Scholar
  7. 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.Google Scholar
  8. Frank, J.Courts on trial. Princeton: Princeton University, 1949.Google Scholar
  9. Hays, W. L.Statistics for the social sciences. New York: Holt, Rineheart, & Winston, 1973.Google Scholar
  10. 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.Google Scholar
  11. 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.Google Scholar
  12. Levine, F. & Tapp, J. The psychology of criminal identification: The gap from Wade to Kirby.University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 1973,5, 1079–1131.Google Scholar
  13. Malpass, R. S., & Kravitz, J. Recognition for faces of own and other race.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1969,13, 330–334.Google Scholar
  14. Marshall, J.,Law and psychology in conflict. New York: Doubleday-Anchor, 1969.Google Scholar
  15. Massen v. State, 41 Wis. 2d 245, 1969.Google Scholar
  16. People v. Chambers, 112 Ill. App. 2d 347, 1969.Google Scholar
  17. People v. Stanton, 274 Cal. App. 2d 13, 1969.Google Scholar
  18. State v. Burch, 284 Minn. 300, 1969.Google Scholar
  19. State v. Parker, 282 Minn. 343, 1969.Google Scholar
  20. Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 263, 1967.Google Scholar
  21. Wall, P.,Eyewitness identification in criminal cases. Springfield Illinois: Charles C. Thomas. 1965.Google Scholar
  22. Wells, G. L. Applied eyewitness-testimony research: System variables and estimator variables.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1978,36, 1546–1557.Google Scholar
  23. 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.Google Scholar
  24. Woocher, F. D. Did your eyes deceive you? Expert psychological testimony on the unreliability of eyewitness identification.Stanford Law Review, 1977,29, 969–1030.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1980

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gary L. Wells
    • 1
  • Michael R. Leippe
    • 2
  • Thomas M. Ostrom
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada
  2. 2.Department of PsychologySt. Norbert CollegeWisconsinUSA
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyOhio State UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations