Encyclopedia of Psychology and Law

beard), the correct identification rate (i.e., picking out

the guilty person when that person is in the lineup)

decreases significantly compared with when there is

no change in the culprit’s appearance. This result has

been found for adults as well as children.

Also, in laboratory studies, simultaneous and

sequential lineup procedures were compared in terms

of a witness’s ability to correctly reject a lineup (i.e.,

saying the guilty person is not present in a lineup that

does not contain him or her) when the suspect did not

match the culprit’s description. Correct rejection rates

have been found not to differ significantly across

these two lineup procedures when there is an appear-

ance mismatch. The evidence to date does not support

the use of a sequential lineup when a suspected

change of appearance or disguise has been used.

Although the simultaneous procedure may be recom-

mended over the sequential, no “ideal” procedure for

lineup identification can be touted when there is a sus-

pected change in appearance or when a disguise has

been used to commit the crime.

Joanna D. Pozzulo

See also Appearance-Change Instruction in Lineups;

Children’s Testimony; Expert Psychological Testimony on

Eyewitness Identification; Eyewitness Memory; Lineup

Size and Bias; Mug Shots; Simultaneous and Sequential

Lineup Presentation; Wrongful Conviction

Further Readings

Memon, A., & Gabbert, F. (2003). Unravelling the effects of

sequential presentation in culprit-present lineups. Applied

Cognitive Psychology, 17,703–714.

Pozzulo, J. D., & Balfour, J. (2006). The impact of change in

appearance on children’s eyewitness identification accuracy:

Comparing simultaneous and elimination lineup procedures.

Legal and Criminological Psychology, 11,25–34.

Pozzulo, J. D., & Marciniak, S. (2006). Comparing

identification procedures when the culprit has changed

appearance. Psychology, Crime, and Law, 12,429–438.

EYEWITNESSIDENTIFICATION:

FIELDSTUDIES

A substantial base of laboratory research is now available

to aid our understanding of eyewitness identification

processes and to support recommendations for lineup

reform. However, there are also a limited number of

peer-reviewed, published studies that measure eyewit-

ness responses in real police cases. Although few, the

studies include large-scale investigations involving a

sizable combined sample of eyewitnesses (4000+).

The traditional simultaneous lineup format in these

studies produces a modal suspect identification (SI)

rate of around 40% to 50% and a filler selection rate

of approximately 20%.

Field studies bring unique strengths and weak-

nesses to research efforts, capturing eyewitness deci-

sions in the most forensically relevant settings but

under circumstances that lack the control and preci-

sion of the lab. Existing field studies—archival

summaries of police reports and descriptive data

from pilot research—effectively augment laboratory

findings.

Each witness decision for a field lineup falls into

one of three response categories: (1) an SI, (2) a filler

identification, or (3) no choice from the lineup.

A challenge for eyewitness field research is that an

unknown percentage of real-world lineups do not

include the perpetrator. Suspect selections cannot

be directly equated with accurate identifications,

because any false identification of an innocent sus-

pect is contained within the SI category. Filler selec-

tions (foils [innocent persons] or false alarms) are

known errors and signal investigators that the witness

has a poor memory or is uncooperative, or that the

filler is a better match to the offender than is the sus-

pect. “No choice” responses (a lineup rejection)

include witnesses unable or unwilling to make a

lineup selection. These limitations of data interpreta-

tion must be kept in mind as the following field

studies are examined.

Archival field studies provide baseline data regard-

ing eyewitness responses under traditional lineup

practice—a simultaneous display of lineup members

administered by an investigator who knows the iden-

tity of the suspect. Some field information is also

available for showups—a single-member lineup.

An early examination of 224 identifications made

by eyewitnesses to real crimes in California revealed

an SI rate of 56% and a showup SI rate of 22%. A year

later, a 1994 study in Vancouver, Canada, detailed 170

identification attempts, 90% from simultaneous photo

lineups. The authors reported SI rates for robbery

victims (46%) and witnesses (33%) and for fraud

victims (25%).

290 ———Eyewitness Identification: Field Studies

E-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:42 PM Page 290