E-Thesis 35 views 4 downloads
Lineup Construction Methods: Should Lineup Constructors be Blinded to the Suspect? / Courtlyn Elkins
Swansea University Author: Courtlyn Elkins
-
PDF | E-Thesis – open access
Copyright: The Author, Courtlyn Elkins, 2026. Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) License. Third party content is excluded for use under the license terms.
Download (7.39MB)
DOI (Published version): 10.23889/SUthesis.72023
Abstract
Lineups should contain known-innocent individuals (fillers) who resemble the suspect. Two common filler selection methods are: the match-to-suspect method, fillers are selected based on perceived similarity to the suspect; and the match-to-description method, fillers are selected based on the perpet...
| Published: |
Swansea
2026
|
|---|---|
| Institution: | Swansea University |
| Degree level: | Doctoral |
| Degree name: | Ph.D |
| Supervisor: | Burns, Edwin; Horry, Ruth; and Young, Hayley |
| URI: | https://cronfa.swan.ac.uk/Record/cronfa72023 |
| Abstract: |
Lineups should contain known-innocent individuals (fillers) who resemble the suspect. Two common filler selection methods are: the match-to-suspect method, fillers are selected based on perceived similarity to the suspect; and the match-to-description method, fillers are selected based on the perpetrator description (Wells et al., 2020). In a systematic review, I examine how the match-to-description method has been implemented and which method leads to superior lineup outcomes. This thesis aimed to investigate: (1) how filler selection methods impact lineup outcomes; (2) how blinding match-to-description lineup constructors impacts the method’s effectiveness. This thesis presents four empirical studies in which stimuli were created (Study 1), and the resulting lineups were tested for fairness (Study 2), suspect-filler similarity and description-fit (Study 3), and eyewitness discriminability (Study 4). Study 1, perpetrator descriptions were elicited from eyewitnesses using a free recall questionnaire or modified version of the Self-Administered Interview. Lineup constructors were provided with: (1) a suspect’s image (match-to-suspect condition), (2) a perpetrator description (blinded match-to-description condition), or (3) a suspect’s image and matching perpetrator description, with instructions to use the description (unblinded match-to-description condition). Study 2 tested the lineups for fairness using the mock witness paradigm. Blinded match-to-description lineups yielded fairer lineups than match-to-suspect lineups. Blinding had limited impact on the fairness of match-to-description lineups. Study 3 investigated suspect-filler similarity and lineup member description-fit. Match-to-suspect lineups yielded higher suspect-filler similarity and lower description-fit than blinded match-to-description lineups. Blinding had limited impact on either metric for match-to-description lineups. Study 4 tested the lineups in a standard eyewitness identification task. The blinded match-to-description method outperformed the match-to-suspect and unblinded match-to-description methods in discriminability and resultant fairness. Offering support for the match-to-description method over the match-to-suspect method and demonstrating the importance of blinding in lineup procedures. Thus, having real-world implications for improving police procedures regarding suspect lineup construction. |
|---|---|
| Keywords: |
match-to-description, match-to-suspect, filler, lineup, lineup construction, filler selection |
| College: |
Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Sciences |
| Funders: |
ESRC Wales Doctoral Training Partnership (DTP) Studentship |