Advertisement

Behavior Research Methods

, Volume 39, Issue 2, pp 242–247 | Cite as

PC_Eyewitness: Evaluating the New Jersey method

  • Otto H. MacLinEmail author
  • Colin M. Phelan
Articles From the SCiP Conference
  • 301 Downloads

Abstract

One important variable in eyewitness identification research is lineup administration procedure. Lineups administered sequentially (one at a time) have been shown to reduce the number of false identifications in comparison with those administered simultaneously (all at once). As a result, some policymakers have adopted sequential administration. However, they have made slight changes to the method used in psychology laboratories. Eyewitnesses in the field are allowed to take multiple passes through a lineup, whereas participants in the laboratory are allowed only one pass. PC_Eyewitness (PCE) is a computerized system used to construct and administer simultaneous or sequential lineups in both the laboratory and the field. It is currently being used in laboratories investigating eyewitness identification in the United States, Canada, and abroad. A modified version of PCE is also being developed for a local police department. We developed a new module for PCE, the New Jersey module, to examine the effects of a second pass. We found that the sequential advantage was eliminated when the participants were allowed to view the lineup a second time. The New Jersey module, and steps we are taking to improve on the module, are presented here and are being made available to the research and law enforcement communities.

Keywords

Correct Rejection Sequential Administration False Identification Eyewitness Identification Sequential Lineup 
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.

References

  1. Connors, E., Lundregan, T., Miller, N., &McEwan, T. (1996).Convicted by juries, exonerated by science: Case studies in the use of DNA evidence to establish innocence after trial. Alexandria, VA: National Institute of Justice.Google Scholar
  2. Farmer, J. J., Jr. (2001, April 18).Attorney General guidelines for preparing and conducting photo and live lineup identification procedures. Trenton, NJ: New Jersey Attorney General’s Office. Available at www.eyewitnessconsortium.utep.edu/Documents/photoid.pdf.Google Scholar
  3. Lindsay, R. C. L. (1999). Applying applied research: Selling the sequential line-up.Applied Cognitive Psychology,13, 219–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Lindsay, R. C. L., &Wells, G. L. (1985). Improving eyewitness identifications rom lineups: Simultaneous versus sequential lineup presentation.Journal of Applied Psychology,70, 556–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. MacLin, O. H., &Malpass, R. S. (2005).Eyewitness identification: Information gain in a fair comparison of sequential and simultaneous lineups. Manuscript in preparation, University of Northern Iowa.Google Scholar
  6. MacLin, O. H., & Meissner, C. A. (dy2005).Project Waterloo: Developing a computerized system of lineup construction and administration for law enforcement. Manuscript in preparation, University of Northern Iowa.Google Scholar
  7. MacLin, O. H., Meissner, C. A., &Zimmerman, L. A. (2005). PC_Eyewitness: A computerized framework for the administration and practical application of research in eyewitness psychology.Behavior Research Methods,37, 324–334.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. MacLin, O. H., Zimmerman, L. A., &Malpass, R. S. (2005). PC_Eyewitness and the sequential superiority effect: Computer-based lineup administration.Law & Human Behavior,29, 303–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Meissner, C. A., Tredoux, C. G., Parker, J. F., &MacLin, O. H. (2005). Eyewitness decisions in simultaneous and sequential lineups: A dual-process signal detection theory analysis.Memory & Cognition,33, 783–792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Scheck, B., Neufeld, P., &Dwyer, J. (2000).Actual innocence. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  11. Shull, R. L., &Pliskoff, S. S. (1967). Changeover delay and concurrent schedules: Some effects on relative performance measures.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,10, 517–527.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Steblay, N., Dysart, J., Fulero, S., &Lindsay, R. C. L. (2001). Eyewitness accuracy rates in sequential and simultaneous lineup presentations: A meta-analytic comparison.Law & Human Behavior,25, 459–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Taslitz, A. (2004).Report to House of Delegates. American Bar Association, Criminal Justice Section. Available at www.atjsupport.org/ Defender/forensics/for_lib/Documents/1101916941.79/ABA20 report%20111c%20adobe.pdf.Google Scholar
  14. Technical Working Group for Eyewitness Evidence (2003).Eyewitness evidence: A trainer’s manual for law enforcement. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.Google Scholar
  15. Turtle, J., & Steblay, N. (2005, March).Lineup identification issues with real officers and real cases: Addressing legal, logistical, and lamentable problems. Paper presented at the American Psychology-Law Society Conference, La Jolla, CA.Google Scholar
  16. Wells, G. L. (1984). The psychology of lineup identifications.Journal of Applied Social Psychology,14, 89–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Wells, G. L. (1993). What do we know about eyewitness identification?American Psychologist,48, 553–557.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Wells, G. L., Malpass, R. S., Lindsay, R. C. L., Fisher, R. P., Turtle, J. W., &Fulero, S. M. (2000). From lab to the police station: A successful application of eyewitness research.American Psychologist,55, 581–598.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Wells, G. L., Small, M., Malpass, R. S., Penrod, S., Fulero, S., &Brimacombe, C. A. E. (1998). Eyewitness identification procedures: Recommendations for lineups and photospreads.Law & Human Behavior,23, 603–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Wells, G. L., &Windschitl, P. D. (1999). Stimulus sampling and social psychological experimentation.Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin,25, 1115–1125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of Northern IowaCedar Falls

Personalised recommendations