Law and Human Behavior

, Volume 25, Issue 5, pp 459–473 | Cite as

Eyewitness Accuracy Rates in Sequential and Simultaneous Lineup Presentations: A Meta-Analytic Comparison

  • Nancy Steblay
  • Jennifer Dysart
  • Solomon Fulero
  • R. C. L. Lindsay


Most police lineups use a simultaneous presentation technique in which eyewitnesses view all lineup members at the same time. Lindsay and Wells (R. C. L. Lindsay & G. L. Wells, 1985) devised an alternative procedure, the sequential lineup, in which witnesses view one lineup member at a time and decide whether or not that person is the perpetrator prior to viewing the next lineup member. The present work uses the technique of meta-analysis to compare the accuracy rates of these presentation styles. Twenty-three papers were located (9 published and 14 unpublished), providing 30 tests of the hypothesis and including 4,145 participants. Results showed that identification of perpetrators from target-present lineups occurs at a higher rate from simultaneous than from sequential lineups. However, this difference largely disappears when moderator variables approximating real world conditions are considered. Also, correct rejection rates were significantly higher for sequential than simultaneous lineups and this difference is maintained or increased by greater approximation to real world conditions. Implications of these findings are discussed.


Social Psychology Accuracy Rate Moderator Variable Rejection Rate Alternative Procedure 
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. Bellinger, K. (1997). Correct lineup rejections as a function of lineup presentation. Undergraduate thesis, Queen's University. Published as Lindsay & Bellinger, 1999.Google Scholar
  2. Blank, H., & Krahe, J. (2000). The influence of an outstanding similarity between two persons in a lineup on target identification in sequential and simultaneous lineups. Unpublished manuscript, University of Leipzig, Germany.Google Scholar
  3. Clifford, B. R., & Hollin, C. R. (1983). Effects of the type of incident and the number of perpetrators on eyewitness memory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 364–370.Google Scholar
  4. Corber, S. K. (1995). Identification procedure: Implications for preschoolers' eyewitness identification accuracy. Queen's University. Published as Lindsay, Pozzulo, Craig, Lee, & Corber, 1997.Google Scholar
  5. Cutler, B. L., & Penrod, S. D. (1988). Improving the reliability of eyewitness identification: Lineup construction and presentation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(2), 281–290.Google Scholar
  6. Dormer, G. (1983). Effect of absolute judgmental processes on eyewitness identification accuracy. Unpublished undergraduate thesis, Queen's University.Google Scholar
  7. Hannaford, K. M. (1985). Relative versus absolute judgments in lineup identifications. Unpublished undergraduate thesis, Queen's University.Google Scholar
  8. Jacob, P. (1994). The feasibility of using multiple perpetrator sequential lineups. BA Honors thesis, Queen's University.Google Scholar
  9. Kassin, S. M., Tubb, V. A., Hosch, H. M., & Memon, A. (2001). On the general acceptance of eyewitness testimony research: A new survey of the experts. American Psychologist, 56, 405–416.Google Scholar
  10. Kneller, W., & Memon, A. (2000). Decision processes of accurate and inaccurate eyewitnesses. Paper presented at the American Psychology–Law Biennial Conference, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
  11. Laldin, S. (1997). Contextual effects on lineup identification of multiple perpetrators. Unpublished undergraduate thesis, Queen's University.Google Scholar
  12. Lindsay, R. C. L., & Bellinger, K. (1999). Alternatives to the sequential lineup: The importance of controlling the pictures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 315–321.Google Scholar
  13. Lindsay, R. C. L., Lea, J. A., & Fulford, J. A. (1991). Sequential lineup presentation: Technique matters. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(5), 741–745.Google Scholar
  14. Lindsay, R. C. L., Lea, J. A., Nosworthy, G. J., Fulford, J. A., Hector, J., LeVan, V., & Seabrook, C. (1991). Biased lineups: Sequential presentation reduces the problem. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(6), 796–802.Google Scholar
  15. Lindsay, R. C. L., Martin, R., & Webber, L. (1994). Default values in eyewitness descriptions:Aproblem for the match–to–description lineup foil selection strategy. Law and Human Behavior, 18(5), 527–541.Google Scholar
  16. Lindsay, R. C. L., Pozzulo, J., Craig, W., Lee, K., & Corber, S. (1997). Simultaneous lineups, sequential lineups, and showups: Eyewitness identification decisions of adults and children. Law and Human Behavior, 21(4), 391–402.Google Scholar
  17. Lindsay, R. C. L., & Wells, G. L. (1985). Improving eyewitness identifications from lineups: Simultaneous versus sequential lineup presentation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70(3), 556–564.Google Scholar
  18. Loftus, E. F., & Greene, E. (1980).Warning: Even memory for faces may be contagious. Law and Human Behavior, 4, 323–334.Google Scholar
  19. Martins, S. (1996). The effects of changes in the appearance and lineup position of targets on eyewitness identification. Unpublished undergraduate thesis, Queen's University.Google Scholar
  20. Meissner, C., & Brigham, J. (in press). A meta–analysis of the verbal overshadowing effect in face identification. Applied Cognitive Psychology.Google Scholar
  21. Melara, R. D., Dewitt–Rickards, T. S., & O'Brien, T. P. (1989). Enhancing lineup identification accuracy: Two codes are better than one. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(5), 706–713.Google Scholar
  22. Newman, K. (1998). The effects of a weak memory trace on sequential and simultaneous lineup identifications. Unpublished undergraduate thesis, Queen's University.Google Scholar
  23. Parker, J. F., & Ryan, V. (1993). An attempt to reduce guessing behavior in children's and adults' eyewitness identifications. Law and Human Behavior, 17(1), 11–26.Google Scholar
  24. Parker, J. F., Tredoux, C., & Nunez, D. (2000). Lineup measures, lineup procedure, and optimality of encoding. Paper presented at the AP–LS Biennial Conference, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
  25. Pozzulo, J.D., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (1997). Conducting identifications with children:What not to do. Expert Evidence, 5, 126–132.Google Scholar
  26. Pozzulo, J.D., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (1999). Eliminating the innocent: Enhancing the accuracy and credibility of child witnesses. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 167–176.Google Scholar
  27. Rombough, V. J. (1994). The effects of lineup presentation and practice on lineup identification accuracy in child eyewitnesses. Unpublished undergraduate thesis, Queen's University.Google Scholar
  28. Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta–analytic procedures for social research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  29. Smyth, L. (1994). Sequential presentation and practice: The jury is still out. Unpublished undergraduate thesis, Queen's University.Google Scholar
  30. Sporer, S. L. (1993). Eyewitness identification accuracy, confidence, and decision times in simultaneous and sequential lineups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 22–33.Google Scholar
  31. Steblay, N. (1992). A meta–analytic review of the weapon–focus effect. Law and Human Behavior, 16, 413–424.Google Scholar
  32. Steblay, N. (1997). Social influence in eyewitness recall: A meta–analytic review of lineup instruction effects. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 283–297.Google Scholar
  33. Steblay, N., Besirevic, J., Fulero, S., & Jimenez–Lorente, B. (1999). The effects of pretrial publicity on juror verdicts: A meta–analytic review. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 219–235.Google Scholar
  34. Technical Working Group for Eyewitness Evidence. (1999). Eyewitness evidence: A guide for law enforcement [Booklet]. Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.Google Scholar
  35. Vanderwal, A. (1996). The effects of the sequential presentation of lineups with multiple perpetrators on eyewitness identification. Unpublished undergraduate thesis, Queen's University.Google Scholar
  36. Varrette, T. K. (1994). The effects of similarity–to–suspect versus match–to–description strategies for selecting lineup foils when perpetrator appearance has been altered. Unpublished undergraduate thesis, Queen's University.Google Scholar
  37. Wells, G. L. (1978). Applied eyewitness testimony research: System variables and estimator variables. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1546–1557.Google Scholar
  38. Wells, G. (1984). The psychology of lineup identifications. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 14, 89–103.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© American Psychology-Law Society/Division 41 of the American Psychology Association 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nancy Steblay
    • 1
  • Jennifer Dysart
    • 2
  • Solomon Fulero
    • 3
  • R. C. L. Lindsay
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyAugsburg CollegeMinneapolis
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyQueen's UniversityKingston, OntarioCanada
  3. 3.Department of PsychologySinclair CollegeDayton

Personalised recommendations