Encyclopedia of Psychology and Law

when the target is present; correct rejection rates are sig-

nificantly higher in showups when the target is absent;

false identifications in target-absent conditions are about

the same (16%); however, errors in target-absent lineups

are spread across fillers rather than focused on the inno-

cent suspect in a showup; and false identifications are

particularly high in showups when the innocent suspect

resembles the perpetrator, for example, when they wear

similar clothing.

No significant differences in identification have been

found between live and photographic showups. Wit-

nesses are likely to be equally confident in showup iden-

tifications in their correct choices of guilty suspects and

false selections of innocent suspects. Innocent suspects

are at significantly less risk in being falsely identified in

lineups than in showups, especially after 2- and 24-hour

retention intervals. Comparisons of showups and line-

ups for voice identifications, either from tape-recordings

presented in the field or over the telephone, indicate that

lineups are significantly superior to showups in mini-

mizing false identifications of a suspect who sounds

very similar to the perpetrator.

Research on the effect of alcohol on identification

from showups reveals that blood alcohol level is not

related to accuracy of identification (hits) when the guilty

suspect is present in the confrontation. However, if an

innocent suspect is present, the higher the blood alcohol

level, the greater the number of false identifications.

Dan Yarmey

See alsoConfidence in Identifications; Identification Tests,

Best Practices in; Lineup Size and Bias; Simultaneous and

Sequential Lineup Presentation; Voice Recognition

Further Readings

Steblay, N., Dysart, J., Fulero, S., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (2003).

Eyewitness accuracy rates in police showup and lineup

presentations: A meta-analytic comparison. Law and

Human Behavior, 27,523–540.

Yarmey, A. D., Yarmey, M. J., & Yarmey, A. L. (1996).

Accuracy of eyewitness identifications in showups and

lineups. Law and Human Behavior, 20,459–477.

SIMULTANEOUS ANDSEQUENTIAL

LINEUPPRESENTATION

Simultaneous and sequential presentation refers to

two styles of presenting a police lineup to witnesses of

a crime. Research shows that patterns in identification

decisions differ between these presentation styles.

This entry reviews the components of each presenta-

tion method and the advantages and disadvantages of

their use and mentions some unresolved issues.

Some crimes involve perpetrators who are strangers

to the victims and to eyewitnesses. When a suspect is

identified by a police investigator, the investigator may

ask the witness to view that suspect in a lineup or photo

array containing the suspect and others who are known

to be innocent (referred to as fillers, foils, or dis-

tracters). Four outcomes are possible: The witness can

select the suspect, select a filler, respond that the sus-

pect is not in the lineup, or give a response of “don’t

know.” Obviously, the accuracy of selections and rejec-

tions of suspects depends on whether the suspect is

actually guilty.

Simultaneous presentation of a lineup involves show-

ing a witness all the members of a lineup at once. Thus,

witnesses decide whether the criminal is present while

looking at the entire lineup. Traditionally, police investi-

gators have used simultaneous lineup presentation.

Research suggests that simultaneous presentation

encourages witnesses to choose the person in the lineup

who looks most like the perpetrator. This comparative

approach is referred to as a “relative judgment strategy.”

If the guilty person is in the lineup, using relative judg-

ments should lead to correct identification. However,

evidence can lead police officers to suspect an innocent

person. In some portion of these occasions, the innocent

suspect will look more like the criminal than other

lineup members. This would make it likely that the

innocent suspect would be chosen by witnesses using

the relative judgment strategy. As evidence mounted that

many innocent people were selected from lineups, the

use of a relative judgment strategy was posited as a pos-

sible explanation for the frequency of such errors. One

way to increase the accuracy of eyewitness decisions

was to develop a lineup technique that decreased the

likelihood that witnesses would use a relative judgment

strategy when viewing the lineup.

Sequential presentation of lineups was proposed as a

means to elicit fewer false selections than simultaneous

lineups by reducing reliance on relative judgments. In

its original formulation, sequential presentation

involved the following five principles. First, each lineup

member is individually shown to the witness. This dis-

courages comparisons among lineup members and

encourages witnesses to compare each lineup member

only with his or her memory for the criminal (often

referred to as an absolute judgment). Second, lineup

Simultaneous and Sequential Lineup Presentation——— 747

S-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:44 PM Page 747