Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Simultaneous, Sequential, Elimination, and Wildcard: A Comparison of Lineup Procedures

  • Published:
Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study compared four lineup procedures: the simultaneous, sequential, elimination, and wildcard. Two hundred and sixty-nine university students (M = 20.17 years) watched a mock, videotaped crime. Then, following a brief delay, they viewed a 6-person target-present or -absent lineup using one of the four lineup procedures. For target-present lineups, correct identification rates for the four lineup procedures were comparable. In contrast, for target-absent lineups, the correct rejection rate was higher using the elimination lineup procedure compared to the wildcard and simultaneous lineup procedures. Remaining comparisons between lineup procedures found no significant differences. Also diagnosticity ratios were similar across the four procedures.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. As can be seen in Figures 1 and 2, there are differences between the two wildcards. We attempted to make the wildcard used as close to that used by Karageorge and Zajac (2011) as possible; we do not believe the differences that do exist are sufficient to influence results.

  2. Data for the sequential lineup procedure were collected after the other procedures. As a result, this procedure was not randomized with the others. All other aspects of data collection for this procedure were followed in-line with the other procedures.

References

  • Beal CR, Schmitt KL, Dekle DJ (1995) Eyewitness identification of children: Effects of absolute judgments, nonverbal response options, and event encoding. Law and Human Behavior 19:197–216. doi:10.1007/BF01499325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beaudry JL, Lindsay RCL (2006) Current identification procedure practices: A survey of Ontario police officers. The Canadian Journal of Police and Security Services 4(4):178–183

    Google Scholar 

  • Beaudry J, Lindsay R, Dupuis P (2006) Procedural recommendations to increase the reliability of eyewitness identifications. In: Kebbell MR, Davies GM (eds) Practical Psychology for Forensic Identifications and Prosecutions. John Wiley & Sons Ltd., West Sussex, England, pp 25–45

    Google Scholar 

  • Beresford J, Blades M (2006) Children's identification of faces from lineups: The effects of lineup presentation and instructions on accuracy. Journal of Applied Psychology 91(5):1102–1113. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.5.1102

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brewer N, Keast A, Sauer J (2010) Children’s eyewitness identification performance: Effects of a not sure response option and accuracy motivation. Legal and Criminological Psychology 15(2):261–277. doi:10.1348/135532509X474822

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlson CA, Gronlund SD, Clark SE (2008) Lineup composition, suspect position, and the sequential lineup advantage. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 14(2):118–128. doi:10.1037/1076-898X.14.2.118

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Clark SE, Howell RT, Davey SL (2008) Regularities in eyewitness identification. Law and Human Behavior 32(3):187–218. doi:10.1007/s10979-006-9082-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Davies G, Tarrant A, Flin R (1989) Close encounters of the witness kind: Children’s memory for a simulated health inspection. British Journal of Psychology 80(4):415–429. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8295.1989.tb02333.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dempsey JL, Pozzulo JD (2013) Children’s identification accuracy of multiple perpetrators: Examining the simultaneous versus elimination lineup procedures. Psychiatry, Psychology, and Law 20(3):352–365. doi:10.1080/132187719.2012.679124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dobolyi DG, Dodson CS (2013) Eyewitness confidence in simultaneous and sequential lineups: A criterion shift account for sequential mistaken identification overconfidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 19(4):345–357. doi:10.1037/a0034596

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Finger K, Pezdek K (1999) The effect of cognitive interview on face identification accuracy: Release from verbal overshadowing. Journal of Applied Psychology 84(3):340–348. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.84.3.340

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gronlund SD (2004) Sequential lineups: Shift in criterion or decision strategy? Journal of Applied Psychology 89(2):362–368. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.2.362

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gronlund SD, Carlson CA, Dailey SB, Goodsell CA (2009) Robustness of the sequential lineup advantage. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 15(2):140–152. doi:10.1037/a0015082

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gronlund SD, Carlson CA, Neuschatz JS, Goodsell CA, Wetmore SA, Wooten A, Graham M (2012) Showups versus lineups: An evaluation using ROC analysis. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition 1(4):221–228. doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2012.09.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gronlund SD, Wixted JT, Mickes L (2014) Evaluating eyewitness identification procedures using receiver operating characteristic analysis. Current Directions in Psychological Science 23(1):3–10. doi:10.1177/0963721413498891

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Havard C, Memon A (2013) The mystery man can help reduce false identification for child witnesses: Evidence from video lineups. Applied Cognitive Psychology 27(1):50–59. doi:10.1002/acp.2870

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Humphries JE, Holliday RE, Flowe HD (2012) Faces in motion: Age-related changes in eyewitness identification performance in simultaneous, sequential, and elimination video lineups. Applied Cognitive Psychology 26(1):149–158. doi:10.1002/acp.1808

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Innocence Project. (2012). Eyewitness misidentification. Retrieved from http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/Eyewitness-Misidentification.php

  • Karageorge A, Zajac R (2011) Exploring the effects of age and delay on children’s person identifications: Verbal descriptions, lineup performance, and the influence of wildcards. British Journal of Psychology 102(2):162–183. doi:10.1348/000712610507902

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindsay RC, Lea JA, Fulford JA (1991) Sequential lineup presentation: Technique matters. Journal of Applied Psychology 76(5):741–745. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.76.5.741

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindsay RCL, Wells GL (1985) Improving eyewitness identifications from lineups: Simultaneous versus sequential lineup presentation. Journal of Applied Psychology 70(3):556–564. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.70.3.556

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luus CAE, Wells GL (1991) Eyewitness identification and the selection of distractors for lineups. Law and Human Behavior 15(1):43–57. doi:10.1007/BF01044829

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meissner CA, Tredoux CG, Parker JF, MacLin OH (2005) Eyewitness decisions in simultaneous and sequential lineups: A dual-process signal detection theory analysis. Memory & Cognition 33(5):783–792. doi:10.3758/BF03193074

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Memon A, Bartlett J (2002) The effects of verbalization on face recognition in young and older adults. Applied Cognitive Psychology 16(6):635–650. doi:10.1002/acp.820

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mickes L, Flowe HD, Wixted JT (2012) Receiver operating characteristic analysis of eyewitness memory: Comparing the diagnostic accuracy of simultaneous versus sequential lineups. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 18(4):361–376. doi:10.1037/a0030609

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Navon D (1990) How critical is the accuracy of eyewitness memory? Another look at the issue of lineup diagnosticity. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 75(5):506–510. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.75.5.506

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmer MA, Brewer N (2012) Sequential lineup presentation promotes less-biased criterion setting but does not improve discriminability. Law and Human Behavior 36(3):247–255. doi:10.1037/h0093923

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Police Executive Research Forum (2013). A national survey of eyewitness identification procedures in law enforcement agencies. Retrieved from policeforum.org/library/eyewitness-identification/NIJEyewitnessReport.pdf

  • Pozzulo JD, 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(1):25–34. doi:10.1348/135532505X52626

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pozzulo JD, Dempsey J, Bruer K, Sheahan C (2012) The culprit in target-absent lineups: Understanding young children’s false positive responding. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology 27(1):55–62. doi:10.1007/s11896-011-9089-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pozzulo JD, Dempsey J, Corey S, Girardi A, Lawandi A, Aston C (2008) Can a lineup procedure designed for child witnesses work for adults? Comparing simultaneous, sequential, and elimination lineup procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology 38(9):2195–2209. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00387.x

    Google Scholar 

  • Pozzulo JD, Dempsey J, Crescini C (2009) Preschoolers' person description and identification accuracy: A comparison of the simultaneous and elimination lineup procedures. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 30(6):667–676. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2009.01.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pozzulo JD, Lindsay RCL (1997) Increasing correct identifications by children. Expert Evidence 5(4):126–132. doi:10.1023/A:1008875802767

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pozzulo JD, Lindsay RCL (1998) Identification accuracy of children versus adults: A meta-analysis. Law and Human Behavior 22(5):549–570. doi:10.1023/A:1025739514042

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pozzulo JD, Lindsay RCL (1999) Elimination lineups: An improved eyewitness procedure for child eyewitnesses. Journal of Applied Psychology 84(2):167–176. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.84.2.167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharps MJ, Herrera M, Dunn L, Alcala E (2012) Repetition and reconfiguration: Demand-based confabulation in initial eyewitness memory. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling 9(2):149–160. doi:10.1002/jip.1361

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steblay N, Dysart J, Fulero S, Lindsay RCL (2001) Eyewitness accuracy rates in sequential and simultaneous lineup presentations: A meta-analytic comparison. Law and Human Behavior 25(5):459–473. doi:10.1023/A:1012888715007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Steblay NK, Dysart JE, Wells GL (2011) Seventy-two tests of the sequential lineup superiority effect: A meta-analysis and policy discussion. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 17(1):99–139. doi:10.1037/a0021650

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wells GL (1993) What do we know about eyewitness identification? American Psychologist 48(5):553–571. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.48.5.553

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wells GL (2014) Eyewitness identification: Probative value, criterion shifts, and policy regarding the sequential lineup. Current Directions in Psychological Science 23(1):11–16. doi:10.1177/0963721413504781

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wells GL, Lindsay RCL (1980) On estimating the diagnosticity of eyewitness nonidentifications. Psychological Bulletin 88(3):776–784. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.88.3.776

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wells GL, Olson EA (2003) Eyewitness testimony. Annual Review of Psychology 54:277–295. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145028

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wells GL, Rydell SM, Seelau EP (1993) The selection of distractors for eyewitness lineups. Journal of Applied Psychology 78(5):835–844. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.78.5.835

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zajac R, Karageorge A (2009) The wildcard: A simple technique for improving children’s target-absent lineup performance. Applied Cognitive Psychology 23(3):358–368. doi:10.1002/acp.1511

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, Ontario, K1S 5B6, Canada

    Joanna D. Pozzulo, Jennifer Reed, Jennifer Pettalia & Julie Dempsey

Authors
  1. Joanna D. Pozzulo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jennifer Reed
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jennifer Pettalia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Julie Dempsey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joanna D. Pozzulo.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pozzulo, J.D., Reed, J., Pettalia, J. et al. Simultaneous, Sequential, Elimination, and Wildcard: A Comparison of Lineup Procedures. J Police Crim Psych 31, 71–80 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-015-9168-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-015-9168-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation