The article Eyewitness Accuracy Rates in Sequential and Simultaneous Lineup Presentations: A Meta-analytic Comparison discusses the sequential and simultaneous lineups and their results, as well as target-absent and target-present lineups. Nowadays a simultaneous presentation technique is the most often used by police. However, Lindsay and Wells offer another technique that is called sequential lineup. If to take into consideration twenty-three papers referring to sequential and simultaneous lineup presentations, the identification of perpetrators occurs from simultaneous target-present lineups more often than from sequential ones. Nevertheless, in the real world conditions this situation changes considerably. In addition, sequential lineups correct rejection rates were higher than simultaneous ones (Steblay, Dysart, Fulero, & Lindsay, 2001, p.459).
The issue raised in the article is based on the relative judgement theory and on the sequential-superiority effect. It means that eyewitnesses compare lineup members when choosing the perpetrators during the simultaneous lineups. Eyewitnesses also tend to choose among the lineup members the one, who resembles them the perpetrators most of all, but they do it by comparing the lineup members to one another (Steblay, Dysart, Fulero, & Lindsay, 2001, p.459).
The article also addresses a legal problem. It can be formulated as follows. The today’s standard police lineups increase the risk of mistaken identification and reduce eyewitness accuracy rates. In order to avoid this problem, Lindsay and Wells offer sequential lineup procedure, which is an alternative to the simultaneous lineup technique. Its aim is to present only one lineup member and to give the eyewitnesses the possibility to decide whether this lineup member is a perpetrator. Only after the decision is made, the eyewitness is allowed to have a look at the next lineup member (Steblay, Dysart, Fulero, & Lindsay, 2001, p.460).
The sample of the study included twenty-three papers, nine of them are published, and fourteen are unpublished. Works were dated from 1983 to 2000. The number of participants is 4,145, including males and females. A computer search provided data for the research. Variables were a part of the data. Methodological ones contained the information about the researcher, the year of publication, the use of published or unpublished sources, hypothesis tests, the size of the sample, the gender of the subjects, and the size of the lineup and crime type. The effect size was measured by the coefficient r (Steblay, Dysart, Fulero, & Lindsay, 2001, p.461-462).
The effect was examined with the help of the tests of the hypothesis. There were thirty such tests. As a result, r and Z supported the author’s hypothesis, particularly the claim that the simultaneous lineup procedure yield better results than the sequential lineup procedure. In the sequential lineup procedures, the participants committed false rejection errors, mainly false lineup rejection. There were fewer false identification errors in the target-absent lineup, as the participants made a choice more hesitantly. To sum up, a simultaneous lineup technique is more accurate in target-present lineups, meanwhile a sequential lineup technique is more accurate in target-absent lineups (Steblay, Dysart, Fulero, & Lindsay, 2001, p.464-466).
The study concluded that in the target-present lineups, the rate of the identification of the perpetrator is higher with simultaneous than with sequential procedures unless the moderator variables are taken into consideration. In addition, sequential lineups have higher correct rejection rates than the simultaneous lineups. Therefore, the results of sequential lineup procedures are superior, except cases with multiple perpetrators or child witnesses (Steblay, Dysart, Fulero, & Lindsay, 2001, p.471).
References
Steblay, N., Dysart, J., Fulero, S., & Lindsay, R. (2001). Eyewitness accuracy rates in sequential and simultaneous lineup presentations: A meta-analytic comparison. Law And Human Behavior, 25(5), 459-473. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/a:1012888715007
