Abstract
Children’s (N = 89) identification accuracy was examined as a function of lineup size. Participants (8–13 years) viewed a videotaped staged event, described what was witnessed and then were presented with either a target-present or—absent lineup containing 6 versus 12 lineup members. The elimination lineup procedure (Pozzulo and Lindsay J Appl Psychol 38: 2195–2209 1999) was used to present lineups. No significant differences in correct identification rates were found across the target-present sized lineups. In addition, the target was likely to “survive” at a comparable rate regardless of lineup size. Moreover, there was no significant difference in correct rejection rate as a function of lineup size. The non significance of these data are critical given that most research with child witnesses uses 6-person lineups whereas in many real world contexts larger sized lineups are used (e.g., 12-person in Canada).
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Brigham JC, Meissner CA, Wasserman AW (1999) Applied issues in the construction and expert assessment of photo lineups. Appl Cogn Psychol 13:73–92
Dempsey JL, Pozzulo JD (2008) Identification accuracy of eyewitnesses for a multiple perpetrator crime: examining the simultaneous and elimination lineup procedures. Am J Forensic Psychol 26:67–81
Levi AM (2002) Up to forty: lineup size, the modified sequential lineup, and the sequential lineup. Cogn Technol 7:39–46
Levi AM (2006) An analysis of multiple choices in MSL lineups, and a comparison with simultaneous and sequential ones. Psychol, Crime, Law 12:273–285
Levi AM (2007) Research note: evidence for moving to an 84-person photo lineup. J Exp Criminol 3:377–391
Lindsay RC, Wells GL (1985) Improving eyewitness identifications from lineups: simultaneous versus sequential lineup presentation. J Appl Psychol 70:556–564
Luus CE, Wells GL (1991) Eyewitness identification and the selection of distractors for lineups. Law Hum Behav 15:43–57
McQuiston-Surrett D, Malpass RS, Tredoux CG (2006) Sequential vs. simultaneous lineups: a review of methods, data and theory. Psychol. Public Policy Law 12:137–169
Nosworthy GL, Lindsay RCL (1990) Does nominal lineup size matter? J Appl Psychol 75:358–361
Pozzulo JD, Lindsay RCL (1998) Identification accuracy of children versus adults: a meta-analysis. Law Hum Behav 22:549–570
Pozzulo JD, Lindsay RCL (1999) Elimination lineups: an improved identification procedure for child eyewitnesses. J Appl Psychol 84:167–176
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 Criminol Psychol 11:25–34
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. J Appl Soc Psychol 38:2195–2209
Pozzulo JD, Dempsey J, Crescini C (in press) Preschoolers’ person description and identification accuracy: a comparison of the simultaneouss and elimination lineup procedures. J Appl Dev Psychol
Wells GL, Rydell SM, Seelau EP (1993) The selection of distractors for eyewitness lineups. J Appl Psychol 78:835–844
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Pozzulo, J.D., Dempsey, J.L. & Wells, K. Does Lineup Size Matter with Child Witnesses. J Police Crim Psych 25, 22–26 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-009-9055-x
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-009-9055-x