Skip to main content
Log in

Simultaneous Lineups, Sequential Lineups, and Showups: Eyewitness Identification Decisions of Adults and Children

  • Published:
Law and Human Behavior

Abstract

Two experiments were conducted comparing the identification accuracy of children aged 3–15 years (N = 307) and undergraduates (N = 384) using target-present and target-absent simultaneous and sequential lineups and showups. Correct identification rates tended not to vary across either age of subject or identification procedure. However, children show a significant tendency to guess as indicated by their lower rate of correct rejection when the target is absent. The tendency for children to make false positive choices was particularly evident with showups.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  • Beal, C. R., Schmitt, K. L., & Dekle, D. J. (1995). Eyewitness identification of children: Effects of absolute judgments, nonverbal response options, and event encoding. Law and Human Behavior, 19, 197–216.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ceci, J. S., & Bruck, M. (1993). Suggestibility of the child witness: A historical review and synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 403–439.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ceci, J. S., Ross, D. F., & Toglia, M. P. (1987). Suggestibility of children's memory: Psychological implications. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 116, 38–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cutler, B. L., & Penrod, S. D. (1988). Improving the reliability of eyewitness identification: Lineup construction and presentation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 281–290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dekle, D. J., Beal, C. R., Elliott, R., & Honeycutt, D. (1993). Children as Witnesses: A Comparison of Lineup Versus Showup Identification Methods. Unpublished manuscript.

  • Gonzalez, R., Ellsworth, P. C., & Pembroke, M. (1993). Response biases in lineups and showups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 525–537.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, E. E., & Davis, K. E. (1965). From acts to dispositions: The attribution process in person perception. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 2, 219–266.

  • Kassin, S. M., Ellsworth, P. C., & Smith, V. L. (1989). The “general acceptance” of psychological research on eyewitness testimony: A survey of the experts. American Psychologist, 46, 1089–1098.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leippe, M. R., Manion, A. P., & Romanczyk, A. (1991). Eyewitness persuasion: How and how well do fact finders judge the accuracy of adults' and children's memory reports? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 181–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindsay, R. C. L., Craig, W., Lee, K., Pozzulo, J., Rombough, V., & Smyth, L. (June 1995). Eyewitness identification procedures for use with children. Vancouver: Society for Applied Research in Memory and Cognition.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindsay, R. C. L., Lea, J. A., & Fulford, J. A. (1991). Sequential lineup presentation: Technique matters. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 741–745.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, 796–802.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindsay, R. C. L., Martin, R., & Webber, L. (1994). Default values in eyewitness descriptions: A problem for the match-to-description lineup foil selection strategy. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 527–541.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindsay, R. C. L., Wallbridge, H., & Drennan, D. (1987). Do the clothes make the man? An exploration of the effect of lineup attire on eyewitness identification accuracy. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 19, 464–478.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindsay, R. C. L., & Wells, G. L. (1980). What price justice? Exploring the relationship of lineup fairness to identification accuracy. Law and Human Behavior, 4, 303–313.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luus, C. A. E., & Wells, G. L. (1991). Eyewitness identification and the selection of distractors for lineups. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 43–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malpass, R. S., & Devine, P. G. (1981). Eyewitness identification: Lineup instructions and the absence of the offender. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 482–489.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (1992). Thinking, problem solving, and cognition (2nd ed.). New York: Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Misciones, J. L., Marvin, R. S., O'Brien, R. G., & Greenberg, M. T. (1978). A developmental study of preschool children's understanding of the words “know” and “guess.” Child Development, 48, 1107–1113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nosworthy, G. J., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (1990). Does nominal lineup size matter? Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 358–361.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker, J. F., & Carranza, L. E. (1989). Eyewitness testimony of children in target-present and target-absent lineups. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 133–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker, J. F., & Ryan, V. (1993). An attempt to reduce guessing behavior in children's and adults' eyewitness identifications. Law and Human Behavior, 17, 11–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagenaar, W. A., & Veefkind, N. (1992). Comparison of one-person and many-person lineups: A warning against unsafe practices. In F. Losel, D. Bender, & T. Bliesener (Eds.), Psychology and law: International perspectives (pp. 275–285). Berlin: de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wason, P. C. (1960). On the failure to eliminate hypotheses in conceptual task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 12, 129–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wells, G. L. (1984). The psychology of lineup identifications. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 14, 89–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wells, G. L. (1988). Eyewitness identification. Toronto: Carswell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wells, G. L. (1993). What do we know about eyewitness identification? American Psychologist, 48, 553–571.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wells, G. L., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (1980). On estimating the diagnosticity of eyewitness nonidentifications. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 776–784.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wells, G. L., Rydell, S. M., & Seelau, E. P. (1993). The selection of distractors for eyewitness lineups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 835–844.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wells, G. L., & Turtle, J. W. (1986). Eyewitness identification: The importance of lineup models. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 320–329.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winer, B. J. (1971). Statistical principles in experimental design (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yarmey, A. D., Yarmey, A. L., & Yarmey, M. J. (1994). Face and voice identifications in showups and lineups. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 8, 453–464.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

About this article

Cite this article

Lindsay, R.C.L., Pozzulo, J.D., Craig, W. et al. Simultaneous Lineups, Sequential Lineups, and Showups: Eyewitness Identification Decisions of Adults and Children. Law Hum Behav 21, 391–404 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024807202926

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024807202926

Keywords

Navigation