Improving Eyewitness Identifications From Lineups: Simultaneous Versus Sequential Lineup Presentation

Staged crime research has demonstrated the utility of controlling the conduct of lineups as a means of reducing false identifications with little or no apparent decline in the rate of correct identifications by eyewitnesses (e.g., Lindsay & Wells, 1980; Malpass & Devine, 1981a; Wells, 1984). A recent variation in lineup procedure shows that a blank lineup, which includes no suspects, can reduce the rate of false identifications if it precedes the actual lineup. However, there are several practical problems that make it unlikely that police will accept this procedure. Sequential lineup presentation is proposed as a means of accomplishing the same goals of reducing false identifications with little or no loss in accurate identifications. A crime was staged for 240 unsuspecting eyewitnesses either individually or in pairs. One quarter of the eyewitnesses attempted identifications in each of four lineup conditions: Six pictures were presented either simultaneously, as used in traditional procedures, or sequentially, in which yes/no judgments were made for each picture; each procedure either contained the photograph of the criminal-confederate or a picture of a similar looking replacement. Sequential lineup presentation significantly reduced false identifications but did not significantly influence correct identifications when compared with the simultaneous procedure. This resulted in an overall increase in diagnosticity ratio (Wells & Lindsay, 1980) using the sequential procedure. The data are interpreted as supporting the conclusion that sequential presentation of lineups can reduce false identifications of innocent suspects by reducing eyewitnesses' reliance on relativejudgment processes.