Law and Human Behavior

, Volume 21, Issue 4, pp 391–404 | Cite as

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

  • R. C. L. Lindsay
  • Joanna D. Pozzulo
  • Wendy Craig
  • Kang Lee
  • Samantha Corber


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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 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
  2. Ceci, J. S., & Bruck, M. (1993). Suggestibility of the child witness: A historical review and synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 403–439.Google Scholar
  3. 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
  4. Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Academic Press.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, 281–290.Google Scholar
  6. Dekle, D. J., Beal, C. R., Elliott, R., & Honeycutt, D. (1993). Children as Witnesses: A Comparison of Lineup Versus Showup Identification Methods. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  7. 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
  8. 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.Google Scholar
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. Mayer, R. E. (1992). Thinking, problem solving, and cognition (2nd ed.). New York: Freeman.Google Scholar
  21. 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
  22. Nosworthy, G. J., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (1990). Does nominal lineup size matter? Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 358–361.Google Scholar
  23. 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
  24. 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
  25. 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
  26. Wason, P. C. (1960). On the failure to eliminate hypotheses in conceptual task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 12, 129–140.Google Scholar
  27. Wells, G. L. (1984). The psychology of lineup identifications. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 14, 89–103.Google Scholar
  28. Wells, G. L. (1988). Eyewitness identification. Toronto: Carswell.Google Scholar
  29. Wells, G. L. (1993). What do we know about eyewitness identification? American Psychologist, 48, 553–571.Google Scholar
  30. Wells, G. L., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (1980). On estimating the diagnosticity of eyewitness nonidentifications. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 776–784.Google Scholar
  31. 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
  32. Wells, G. L., & Turtle, J. W. (1986). Eyewitness identification: The importance of lineup models. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 320–329.Google Scholar
  33. Winer, B. J. (1971). Statistical principles in experimental design (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  34. 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

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. C. L. Lindsay
    • 1
  • Joanna D. Pozzulo
    • 1
  • Wendy Craig
    • 1
  • Kang Lee
    • 1
  • Samantha Corber
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyQueen's UniversityKingstonCanada

Personalised recommendations