No Cover Image

Journal article 1772 views 388 downloads

The effects of allowing a second sequential lineup lap on choosing and probative value.

Ruth Horry Orcid Logo, Neil Brewer, Nathan Weber, Matthew A. Palmer

Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, Volume: 21, Issue: 2, Pages: 121 - 133

Swansea University Author: Ruth Horry Orcid Logo

DOI (Published version): 10.1037/law0000041

Abstract

When presented with a sequential lineup, witnesses see each member of the lineup individually, essentially making a yes/no decision for each person shown. An important policy question is whether witnesses should be allowed to see an additional lap of a sequential lineup. We investigated the impact o...

Full description

Published in: Psychology, Public Policy, and Law
Published: 2015
URI: https://cronfa.swan.ac.uk/Record/cronfa20294
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
first_indexed 2015-03-12T03:00:05Z
last_indexed 2019-06-19T19:33:08Z
id cronfa20294
recordtype SURis
fullrecord <?xml version="1.0"?><rfc1807><datestamp>2019-06-19T16:25:46.1396587</datestamp><bib-version>v2</bib-version><id>20294</id><entry>2015-03-11</entry><title>The effects of allowing a second sequential lineup lap on choosing and probative value.</title><swanseaauthors><author><sid>ea243bc0327bc0213c076bda1fe85f10</sid><ORCID>0000-0003-3105-3781</ORCID><firstname>Ruth</firstname><surname>Horry</surname><name>Ruth Horry</name><active>true</active><ethesisStudent>false</ethesisStudent></author></swanseaauthors><date>2015-03-11</date><deptcode>HPS</deptcode><abstract>When presented with a sequential lineup, witnesses see each member of the lineup individually, essentially making a yes/no decision for each person shown. An important policy question is whether witnesses should be allowed to see an additional lap of a sequential lineup. We investigated the impact of a second lap on eyewitness decision-making and on the probative value of suspect identifications. We recruited a large community sample of participants (N = 393), each of whom viewed a target person before seeing a sequential lineup that did or did not include the target. A second lap was either required or optional. The group of participants who accepted the second lap were less able to discriminate between the target and the fillers and responded more conservatively in lap 1 than the group of witnesses who declined the second lap. Responding became more lenient from lap 1 to lap 2. Of the participants who saw a second lap, roughly 40% changed their response, most frequently from a non-identification to an identification. Both culprit identifications and filler identifications increased from lap 1 to lap 2. The probative value of suspect identifications was not significantly different whether witnesses were allowed two laps or one. However, the observed effects may be moderated by a number of system and estimator variables. Further, even small changes in probative value can have very different consequences depending upon the target-absent base rate.</abstract><type>Journal Article</type><journal>Psychology, Public Policy, and Law</journal><volume>21</volume><journalNumber>2</journalNumber><paginationStart>121</paginationStart><paginationEnd>133</paginationEnd><publisher/><keywords>Eyewitness identifiction; sequential lineup; response bias</keywords><publishedDay>31</publishedDay><publishedMonth>12</publishedMonth><publishedYear>2015</publishedYear><publishedDate>2015-12-31</publishedDate><doi>10.1037/law0000041</doi><url/><notes></notes><college>COLLEGE NANME</college><department>Psychology</department><CollegeCode>COLLEGE CODE</CollegeCode><DepartmentCode>HPS</DepartmentCode><institution>Swansea University</institution><apcterm/><lastEdited>2019-06-19T16:25:46.1396587</lastEdited><Created>2015-03-11T10:00:10.0120352</Created><path><level id="1">Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Sciences</level><level id="2">School of Psychology</level></path><authors><author><firstname>Ruth</firstname><surname>Horry</surname><orcid>0000-0003-3105-3781</orcid><order>1</order></author><author><firstname>Neil</firstname><surname>Brewer</surname><order>2</order></author><author><firstname>Nathan</firstname><surname>Weber</surname><order>3</order></author><author><firstname>Matthew A.</firstname><surname>Palmer</surname><order>4</order></author></authors><documents><document><filename>0020294-02042015092215.pdf</filename><originalFilename>Horry__Brewer__Weber__&amp;__Palmer__in__press__PPPL.pdf</originalFilename><uploaded>2015-04-02T09:22:15.9370000</uploaded><type>Output</type><contentLength>721818</contentLength><contentType>application/pdf</contentType><version>Accepted Manuscript</version><cronfaStatus>true</cronfaStatus><embargoDate>2015-04-02T00:00:00.0000000</embargoDate><documentNotes/><copyrightCorrect>true</copyrightCorrect></document></documents><OutputDurs/></rfc1807>
spelling 2019-06-19T16:25:46.1396587 v2 20294 2015-03-11 The effects of allowing a second sequential lineup lap on choosing and probative value. ea243bc0327bc0213c076bda1fe85f10 0000-0003-3105-3781 Ruth Horry Ruth Horry true false 2015-03-11 HPS When presented with a sequential lineup, witnesses see each member of the lineup individually, essentially making a yes/no decision for each person shown. An important policy question is whether witnesses should be allowed to see an additional lap of a sequential lineup. We investigated the impact of a second lap on eyewitness decision-making and on the probative value of suspect identifications. We recruited a large community sample of participants (N = 393), each of whom viewed a target person before seeing a sequential lineup that did or did not include the target. A second lap was either required or optional. The group of participants who accepted the second lap were less able to discriminate between the target and the fillers and responded more conservatively in lap 1 than the group of witnesses who declined the second lap. Responding became more lenient from lap 1 to lap 2. Of the participants who saw a second lap, roughly 40% changed their response, most frequently from a non-identification to an identification. Both culprit identifications and filler identifications increased from lap 1 to lap 2. The probative value of suspect identifications was not significantly different whether witnesses were allowed two laps or one. However, the observed effects may be moderated by a number of system and estimator variables. Further, even small changes in probative value can have very different consequences depending upon the target-absent base rate. Journal Article Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 21 2 121 133 Eyewitness identifiction; sequential lineup; response bias 31 12 2015 2015-12-31 10.1037/law0000041 COLLEGE NANME Psychology COLLEGE CODE HPS Swansea University 2019-06-19T16:25:46.1396587 2015-03-11T10:00:10.0120352 Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Sciences School of Psychology Ruth Horry 0000-0003-3105-3781 1 Neil Brewer 2 Nathan Weber 3 Matthew A. Palmer 4 0020294-02042015092215.pdf Horry__Brewer__Weber__&__Palmer__in__press__PPPL.pdf 2015-04-02T09:22:15.9370000 Output 721818 application/pdf Accepted Manuscript true 2015-04-02T00:00:00.0000000 true
title The effects of allowing a second sequential lineup lap on choosing and probative value.
spellingShingle The effects of allowing a second sequential lineup lap on choosing and probative value.
Ruth Horry
title_short The effects of allowing a second sequential lineup lap on choosing and probative value.
title_full The effects of allowing a second sequential lineup lap on choosing and probative value.
title_fullStr The effects of allowing a second sequential lineup lap on choosing and probative value.
title_full_unstemmed The effects of allowing a second sequential lineup lap on choosing and probative value.
title_sort The effects of allowing a second sequential lineup lap on choosing and probative value.
author_id_str_mv ea243bc0327bc0213c076bda1fe85f10
author_id_fullname_str_mv ea243bc0327bc0213c076bda1fe85f10_***_Ruth Horry
author Ruth Horry
author2 Ruth Horry
Neil Brewer
Nathan Weber
Matthew A. Palmer
format Journal article
container_title Psychology, Public Policy, and Law
container_volume 21
container_issue 2
container_start_page 121
publishDate 2015
institution Swansea University
doi_str_mv 10.1037/law0000041
college_str Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Sciences
hierarchytype
hierarchy_top_id facultyofmedicinehealthandlifesciences
hierarchy_top_title Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Sciences
hierarchy_parent_id facultyofmedicinehealthandlifesciences
hierarchy_parent_title Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Sciences
department_str School of Psychology{{{_:::_}}}Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Sciences{{{_:::_}}}School of Psychology
document_store_str 1
active_str 0
description When presented with a sequential lineup, witnesses see each member of the lineup individually, essentially making a yes/no decision for each person shown. An important policy question is whether witnesses should be allowed to see an additional lap of a sequential lineup. We investigated the impact of a second lap on eyewitness decision-making and on the probative value of suspect identifications. We recruited a large community sample of participants (N = 393), each of whom viewed a target person before seeing a sequential lineup that did or did not include the target. A second lap was either required or optional. The group of participants who accepted the second lap were less able to discriminate between the target and the fillers and responded more conservatively in lap 1 than the group of witnesses who declined the second lap. Responding became more lenient from lap 1 to lap 2. Of the participants who saw a second lap, roughly 40% changed their response, most frequently from a non-identification to an identification. Both culprit identifications and filler identifications increased from lap 1 to lap 2. The probative value of suspect identifications was not significantly different whether witnesses were allowed two laps or one. However, the observed effects may be moderated by a number of system and estimator variables. Further, even small changes in probative value can have very different consequences depending upon the target-absent base rate.
published_date 2015-12-31T03:23:55Z
_version_ 1763750796412846080
score 11.037056

Similar Items