Seventy-two tests of the sequential lineup superiority effect
A meta-analysis and policy discussion
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 7984387 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Nancy K Steblay (0000-0002-9539-7041, Augsburg University), Jennifer E Dysart (John Jay College of Criminal Justice), Gary L Wells (0000-0002-5723-8998, Iowa State University) |
| Year | 2011 |
| Volume | 17 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 99-139 |
| Publication date | 2011-02-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Psychology Public Policy and Law (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1076-8971 • E-ISSN: 1939-1528 |
| Publisher | American Psychological Association (APA) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1037/a0021650 |
| OpenAlex | W2123345158 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 12 |
| References cited | 7 |
A decade ago, a meta-analysis showed that identification of a suspect from a sequential lineup versus a simultaneous lineup was more diagnostic of guilt (Steblay, Dysart, Fulero, & Lindsay, 2001). Since then, controversy and debate regarding sequential superiority has emerged. We report the results of a new meta-analysis involving 72 tests of simultaneous and sequential lineups from 23 different labs involving 13,143 participant-witnesses. The results are very similar to the 2001 results in showing that the sequential lineup is less likely to result in an identification of the suspect, but also more diagnostic of guilt than is the simultaneous lineup. An examination of the full diagnostic design dataset (27 tests that used the full simultaneous/sequential culprit-present/culprit-absent design) showed that the average gap in correct identifications favoring the simultaneous lineup over the sequential lineup—8%—is smaller than the 15% figure obtained from the 2001 meta-analysis (and from the current full 72-test dataset). The lower error rate incurred for culprit-absent lineups with use of a sequential format remains consistent across the years, with 22% fewer errors than simultaneous lineups. A Bayesian analysis shows that the posterior probability of guilt following an identification of the suspect is higher for the sequential lineup across the entire base rate for culprit presence/absence. New ways to think about policy issues are discussed
Cognitive psychology · Criminology · Culprit · Data mining · Eyewitness identification · Meta-analysis · Psychiatry · Suspect · Computer Science · Deception detection and forensic psychology · Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics · Memory Processes and Influences · Psychology · Social Psychology
Pitfalls in using eyewitness confidence to diagnose the accuracy of an individual identification decision
The effect of suspect-filler similarity on eyewitness identification decisions
Impact of disguise on identification decisions and confidence with simultaneous and sequential lineups
Eyewitness Memory for People and Events
Overview of meta-analyses on giftedness
Investigating the Impact of Prior Suspect Familiarity on Same‐ and Cross‐Race Lineup Identifications
New Insights on Expert Opinion About Eyewitness Memory Research
A Signal Detection Approach to Understanding the Identification of Fake News
Measuring memory is harder than you think
Evaluating earwitness identification procedures
Racial Bias Increases False Identification of Black Suspects in Simultaneous Lineups
An examination of the cognitive processes related to eyewitness lineup decisions
| Unique citing works | 12 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,86 |
| Citation span | 2012 - 2026 (15) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 9 |