Journal of Experimental Criminology

, Volume 11, Issue 2, pp 263–284 | Cite as

Comparing the diagnostic accuracy of suspect identifications made by actual eyewitnesses from simultaneous and sequential lineups in a randomized field trial




Eyewitness misidentifications have been implicated in many of the DNA exoneration cases that have come to light in recent years. One reform designed to address this problem involves switching from simultaneous lineups to sequential lineups, and our goal was to test the diagnostic accuracy of these two procedures using actual eyewitnesses.


In a recent randomized field trial comparing the performance of simultaneous and sequential lineups in the real world, suspect ID rates were found to be similar for the two procedures. Filler ID rates were found to be slightly (but, in the key test, nonsignificantly) higher for simultaneous than sequential lineups, but fillers will not be prosecuted even if identified. Moreover, filler IDs may not provide reliable information about innocent suspect IDs. Here, we use two different proxy measures for ground truth of guilt versus innocence for suspects identified from simultaneous or sequential lineups in that same field study.


The results indicate that innocent suspects are, if anything, less likely to be mistakenly identified—and guilty suspects are more likely to be correctly identified—from simultaneous lineups compared to sequential lineups.


Filler identifications are not necessarily predictive of the more consequential error of misidentifying an innocent suspect. With regard to actual suspect identifications, simultaneous lineups are diagnostically superior to sequential lineups. These findings are consistent with recent laboratory-based studies using receiver operating characteristic analysis suggesting that simultaneous lineups make it easier for eyewitnesses to tell the difference between innocent and guilty suspects.


Eyewitness identification ROC analysis Sequential lineups Simultaneous lineups 


  1. Amendola, K.L., & Slipka, M.G. (2009). Strength of evidence scale. Unpublished instrument. Police Foundation, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  2. Amendola, K.L., Valdovinos, M.D., Hamilton, E.E., Slipka, M.G., Sigler, M., and Kaufman, A. (2014). Photo arrays in eyewitness identification procedures: Presentation methods, influence of ID decisions on experts’ evaluations of evidentiary strength, and follow-up on the AJS Eyewitness ID Field Study. Washington, DC: Police Foundation.
  3. Brewer, N., Weber, N., & Semmler, C. (2005). Eyewitness identification. In N. Brewer & K. D. Williams (Eds.), Psychology and law: An empirical perspective (pp. 177–221). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  4. Carlson, C. A., & Carlson, M. A. (2014). An evaluation of perpetrator distinctiveness, weapon presence, and lineup presentation using ROC analysis. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 3, 45–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carlson, C. A., Gronlund, S. D., & Clark, S. E. (2008). Lineup composition, suspect position, and the sequential lineup advantage. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 14, 118–128.Google Scholar
  6. Clark, S. E. (2005). A re-examination of the effects of biased lineup instructions in eyewitness identification. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 395–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clark, S. E. (2012). Costs and benefits of eyewitness identification reform: Psychological science and public policy. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 238–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dobolyi, D. G., & Dodson, C. S. (2013). Eyewitness confidence in simultaneous and sequential lineups: a criterion shift account for sequential mistaken identification overconfidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 19, 345–357.Google Scholar
  9. Durose, M.R., & Langan, P.A. (2003). Felony Sentences in state courts, 2000. (Report No. NCJ 198821). Retrieved from Bureau of Justice Statistics website:
  10. Gronlund, S. D., Carlson, C. A., Dailey, S. B., & Goodsell, C. A. (2009). Robustness of the sequential lineup advantage. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 15, 140–152.Google Scholar
  11. Gronlund, S. D., Carlson, C. A., Neuschatz, J. S., Goodsell, C. A., Wetmore, S. A., Wooten, A., & Graham, M. (2012). Showups versus lineups: An evaluation using ROC analysis. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 1, 221–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gronlund, S. D., Wixted, J. T., & Mickes, L. (2014). Evaluating eyewitness identification procedures using ROC analysis. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23, 3–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Horry, R., Halford, P., Brewer, N., Milne, R., & Bull, R. (2014). Archival analysis of eyewitness identification test outcomes: What can they tell us about eyewitness memory? Law and Human Behavior, 38, 94–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. McQuiston-Surrett, D. E., 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mickes, L., Flowe, H. D., & Wixted, J. T. (2012). Receiver operating characteristic analysis of eyewitness memory: Comparing the diagnostic accuracy of simultaneous and sequential lineups. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 18, 361–376.Google Scholar
  17. Palmer, M. A., Brewer, N., & Weber, N. (2012). The information gained from Witnesses' responses to an initial "blank" lineup. Law and Human Behavior, 36, 439–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Perfect, T. J., & Weber, N. (2012). How should witnesses regulate the accuracy of their identification decisions: One step forward, two steps back? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38, 1810–1818.Google Scholar
  19. Police Executive Research Forum (2013). A National Survey of Eyewitness Identification Procedures in Law Enforcement Agencies.
  20. Steblay, N. M., & Phillips, J. D. (2011). The not-sure response option in sequential lineup practice. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25, 768–774.Google Scholar
  21. Steblay, N. K., Dysart, J. E., & Wells, G. L. (2011). Seventy-two tests of the sequential lineup superiority effect: A meta-analysis and policy discussion. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 17, 99–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Weber, N., & Perfect, T. J. (2012). Improving eyewitness identification accuracy by screening out those who say they don’t know. Law and Human Behavior, 36, 28–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Wells, G. L. (1978). Applied eyewitness-testimony research: system variables and estimator variables. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 12, 1546–1557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wells, G. L. (1984). The psychology of lineup identifications. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 14, 89–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wells, G.L., Steblay, N.K., & Dysart, J.E. (2011). A test of the simultaneous vs. sequential lineup methods: An initial report of the AJS national eyewitness identification field studies. Des Moines, Iowa: American Judicature Society. Retrieved from: Scholar
  26. Wells, G. L., Steblay, N. K., & Dysart, J. (2012). Eyewitness identification Reforms: Are suggestiveness-induced hits and guesses true hits? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 264–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wells, G.L., Steblay, N.K., & Dysart, J.E. (2014). Double-Blind Photo-Lineups Using Actual Eyewitnesses: An Experimental Test of a Sequential versus Simultaneous Lineup Procedure. Law and Human Behavior Google Scholar
  28. Wixted, J. T., & Mickes, L. (2012). The field of eyewitness memory should abandon "probative value" and embrace Receiver Operating Characteristic analysis. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 275–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wixted, J. T., & Mickes, L. (2014). A signal-detection-based diagnostic feature-detection model of eyewitness identification. Psychological Review, 121, 262–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Police FoundationWashingtonUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of CaliforniaSan Diego, La JollaUSA

Personalised recommendations