Simultaneous
v.
Sequential

Eyewitness Identification Research Laboratory
At the University of Texas at El Paso

Criminal Justice
Program

Psychology
Department

===========
Bibliographies

Consultation

Current
Research

Lab
Members

Lab
Publications

Lineups &
Evaluation

Related Links

Contact us

Home Page

Simultaneous and Sequential Lineups.

Beaman, A. L. (1991). An empirical comparison of meta-analytic and traditional reviews. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 252–257.

Behrman, B. W., & Davey, S. L. (2001). Eyewitness identification in actual criminal cases: An archival analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 475–491.

Bellinger, K. (1995). Correct lineup rejections as a function of lineup presentation. Unpublished undergraduate thesis, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.

Blank, H., & Krahe, J. (2000). The influence of an outstanding similarity between two persons in a lineup on target identification in sequential and simultaneous lineups. Unpublished manuscript, University of Leipzig, Germany.

Clark, S. (2002, March). Modeling the Memory and Decision Processes in Sequential Line-ups and Show-ups. Paper presented at the meetings of the American Psychology – Law Society, Austin, TX.

Clark, S. E. (2003). A memory and decision model for eyewitness identification. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 629–654.

Clark, S. E., & Davey, S. L. (2005). The target-to-foils shift in simultaneous and sequential lineups. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 151–172.

Corber, S. K. (1995). Identification procedure: Implications for preschoolers’ eyewitness identification accuracy. Unpublished undergraduate thesis, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.

Cox, M. (1992). The role of estimator and systems variables in face identification. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Purdue University.

Cutler, B. L., & Penrod, S. D. (1988). Improving the reliability of eyewitness identification: Lineup construction and presentation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 281–290.

Deffenbacher, K. A., Bornstein, B. H., Penrod, S. D., & McGorty, E. K. (2004). A meta-analytic review of the effects of high stress on eyewitness memory. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 687–706.

Dormer, G. (1983). Effect of absolute judgmental processes on eyewitness identification accuracy. Unpublished undergraduate thesis, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.

Douglass, A. B., & McQuiston-Surrett, D. (in press). Post-identification feedback: Exploring the effects of sequential photospreads and eyewitnesses’ awareness of the identification task. Applied Cognitive Psychology.

Dysart, J. E. (1999). The effects of delay on eyewitness identification accuracy. Unpublished master’s thesis, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.

Dysart, J. E., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (2001). A preidentification questioning effect: Serendipitously increasing correct rejection. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 155–165.

Ebbesen, E. B., & Flowe, H. (2002). Simultaneous v. sequential lineups: What do we really know?http://www-psy.ucsd.edu/%7eeebbesen/SimSeq.htm

Farmer, J. J. Jr. (2001, April 18). Attorney General Guidelines for Preparing and Conducting Photo and Live Lineup Identification Procedures. New Jersey Attorney Generals Office, Trenton, New Jersey. http://eyewitnessconsortium.utep.edu/Documents/photoid.pdf

Gaitens, K., Zimmerman, L., McQuiston, D. E., & Malpass, R. S. (2002, March). Structural bias in eyewitness lineups: When does the suspect stand out? Poster session presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society, Austin, TX.

Gonzalez, R., Davis, J., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1995). Who should stand next to the suspect? Problems in the assessment of lineup fairness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 525–531.

Gronlund, S. D. (2004). Sequential lineups: Shift in criterion or decision strategy? Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 362–368.

Gronlund, S. D. (2005). Sequential lineup advantage: Contributions of distinctiveness and recollection. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 23–37.

Hannaford, K. M. (1985). Relative versus absolute judgments in lineup identifications. Unpublished undergraduate thesis, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.

Haw, R. M., & Fisher, R. P. (2004). Effects of administrator-witness contact on eyewitness identification accuracy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 1106–1112.

Herrera, V., MacLin, M.K., & Malpass, R.S. (April, 2001). Sequential versus simultaneous presentation and its influence on the "criminality effect." Poster presented at the Rocky Mountain Psychological Association Convention, Reno, NV.

Jacob, P. (1994). The feasibility of using multiple culprit sequential lineups. Unpublished undergraduate thesis, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.

Kassin, S., Tubb, V. A., Hosch, H. M., & Memon, A. (2001). On the “general acceptance” of eyewitness testimony research: A new survey of the experts. American Psychologist, 56, 405–416.

Klobuchar, A., Steblay, N., & Caligiuri, H. (in press). Improving eyewitness identifications: Hennepin County’s blind sequential lineup pilot project. The Cardozo Public Law, Policy and Ethics Journal.

Kneller, W., Memon, A., & Stevenage, S. (2001). Simultaneous and sequential lineups: Decision processes of accurate and inaccurate eyewitnesses. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 15, 659–671.

Kolata, G., & Peterson, I. (2001, July 21). New Jersey is trying new way for witnesses to say, “It’s him”. The New York Times.

Laldin, S. (1997). Contextual effects on lineup identification of multiple culprits. Unpublished undergraduate thesis, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.

Levi, A. M. & Lindsay, R. C. L. (2001). Lineup and photospread procedures: Issues concerning policy recommendations. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7, 776– 790.

Lindsay, D. S., Read, J. D. & Sharma, K. (1998). Accuracy and confidence in person identification: The relationship is strong when witnessing conditions vary widely. Psychological Science. Vol 9(3), 215-218.

Lindsay, R. C. L. & Bellinger. K. (1999). Alternatives to the sequential lineup: The importance of controlling the pictures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 315–321.

Lindsay, R. C. L. & Turtle, J. (2001). Best practices for suspect identification: ‘Blind’ sequential lineup procedures. Unpublished manuscript.

Lindsay, R. C. L. & Wells, G. L. (1985). Improving eyewitness identifications from lineups: Simultaneous versus sequential lineup presentation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 556–564.

Lindsay, R. C. L. & Wells, G. L. (1985). Improving eyewitness identifications from lineups: Simultaneous versus sequential lineup presentation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70(3), 556-564.

Lindsay, R. C. L. (1999). Applying applied research: Selling the sequential line-up. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13, 219–225.

Lindsay, R. C. L. (2002, March). Limitations of sequential lineups. Paper presented at the meetings of the American Psychology – Law Society, Austin, TX.

Lindsay, R. C. L., Lea, J. A., & Fulford, J. A. (1991). Sequential lineup presentation: Technique matters. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(5), 741-745.

Lindsay, R. C. L., Lea, J. A., Nosworthy, G. J., Fulford, J. A., Hector, J., LeVan, V., & Seabrook, C. (1991). Biased lineups: Sequential presentation reduces the problem. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(6), 796-802.

Lindsay, R. C. L., Martin, R., & Webber, L. (1994). Default values in eyewitness descriptions: A problem for the match-to-description lineup foil selection strategy. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 527–541.

Lindsay, R. C. L., Pozzulo, J. D., Craig, W., Lee, K., & Corber, S. (1997). Simultaneous lineups, sequential lineups, and showups: Eyewitness identification decisions of adults and children. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 391–404.

Lindsay, R. C. L., Smith, S. M., & Pryke, S. (1999). Measures of lineup fairness: Do they postdict identification accuracy? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13, S93–S107.

Lindsay, R.C.L. (2002, March). Limitations of Sequential Lineups. Paper presented at the meetings of the American Psychology – Law Society, Austin, TX.

Luus, C. A. E. and Wells, G. L. (1994). The malleability of eyewitness confidence: Co-witness and perseverance effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(5), 714-723

Luus, C. A., & Wells, G. L. (1994). The malleability of eyewitness confidence: Cowitness and perseverance effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 714–723.

MacLin, O. H., & Zimmerman, L. A. (2003, July). Evaluating relative vs. absolute judgments when identifying members of another race. In C. A. Meissner (Chair), Cross-race effect in memory for faces: Developmental, theoretical and applied implications. Symposium presented at the meeting of the Society for Applied Research in Memory & Cognition, Aberdeen, Scotland.

MacLin, O. H., Malpass, R. S., & Kroeger, B. (June, 2001). A PC Computer Program To Evaluate And Administer Lineups For Research And Law Enforcement. Paper presented at the fourth biennial meeting of the Society for Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.

MacLin, O. H., McQuiston, D., Kroeger, B., & Malpass, R. S. (June, 2001). A fair comparison of laboratory administered simultaneous and sequential lineups. Paper presented at the fourth biennial meeting of the Society for Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.

MacLin, O.H. & Malpass, R.S. (2002, March). Towards an Ecological Approach in Examining the Diagnosticity of Sequential and Simultaneous Line-up Presentations. Paper presented at the meetings of the American Psychology – Law Society, Austin, TX.

Malpass, R. S. (1981). Effective size and defendant bias in eyewitness identification lineups. Law and Human Behavior, 5, 299–309.

Malpass, R. S. (2006). Notes on the Illinois Pilot Program on Sequential Double-Blind Identification Procedures. Public Interest Law Reporter, 11(2), p 5-47.

Malpass, R. S., & Devine, P. G. (1983). Measuring the fairness of eyewitness identification lineups. In S. Lloyd-Bostock, & B. Clifford (Eds.), Evaluating witness evidence (pp. 81–102). London: Wiley.

Malpass, R. S., & Devine, P. G. (1984). Research on suggestion in lineups and photospreads. In G. L. Wells & E. F. Loftus (Eds.), Eyewitness testimony: Psychological perspectives (pp. 64–91). Melbourne, Australia: Cambridge University Press.

Malpass, R. S., & Kravitz, J. (1969). Recognition for faces of own and other “race.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13, 330–334.

Malpass, R. S., MacLin, O. H., Zimmerman, L. A., Tredoux, C. G., & McQuiston, D. E. (2003, July). A study space analysis for policy development: Application to simultaneous vs. sequential lineups. In R. S. Malpass (Chair), Simultaneous or sequential lineups? New data, new perspectives, new looks at old questions, and a study space based policy analysis. Symposium presented at the meeting of the American Psychology- Law Society, Edinburgh, Scotland.

Malpass, R. S., Tredoux, C. G., & McQuiston-Surrett, D. (2007). Lineup construction and lineup fairness. In R. Lindsay, D. Ross, J. D. Read, & M. P. Toglia (Eds.), Handbook of eyewitness psychology: Volume 2. Memory for people. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Malpass, R.S. (2006). A Policy Evaluation of Simultaneous and Sequential Lineups. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 12(4), 394-418.

Martins, S. (1996). The effects of changes in the appearance and lineup position of targets on eyewitness identification. Unpublished undergraduate thesis, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.

Marwitz, D. B., & Wogalter, M. S. (1988). Bias in photo-spreads of faces: A comparison of two lineup construction methods. Paper presented at the annual proceedings of the Human Factors Society, Santa Monica, CA.

McQuiston, D. E., & Malpass, R. S. (2002). Validity of the mock witness paradigm: Testing the assumptions. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 439–453.

McQuiston, D. E., Salinas, R., Villegas, E., Garcia, G., & Malpass, R. S. (2001, May). Utility of the sequential lineup procedure: Exploring generalizability issues. Poster session presented at the annual meeting of the Western Psychological Association, Maui, HI.

McQuiston, D. E., Salinas, R., Villegas, E., Garcia, G., & Malpass, R. S. (May, 2001). Utility of the sequential lineup procedure: Exploring generalizability issues. Paper presented at the 2001 Western Psychological Association Annual Meeting, Maui, HI.

McQuiston-Surrett, D.E., Malpass, R.S., & Tredoux, C.G. (2006). Sequential vs. simultaneous lineups: A review of methods, data, and theory. Psychology, Public Policy and Law. 12(2), 137-169.

Mecklenburg, S. H. (2006, March). Report to the legislature of the State of Illinois: The Illinois pilot program on sequential double-blind identification procedures. Springfield, IL: Illinois State Police.

Mecklenburg, S.H. (2006, June). Addendum to the report to the Legislature of the State of Illinois: The Illinois Pilot Program on Sequential Double-Blind Identification Procedures.

Mecklenburg, S.H. (2006, March). Appendices to the Report to the Legislature of the State of Illinois: The Illinois Pilot Program on Sequential Double-Blind Identification Procedures.

Meissner, C. A., Tredoux, C. G., Parker, J. F., & MacLin, O. H. (2005). Eyewitness decisions in simultaneous and sequential lineups: A dual-process signal detection theory analysis. Memory & Cognition, 33, 783–792.

Meissner, C.A. & Brigham, J. C. (2002, March). Do (Modified) Sequential Line-ups Safeguard Against the Influence of Criterion Shifts in Verbal Descriptions? Applied Implications of the Verbal Overshadowing Effect. Paper presented at the meetings of the American Psychology – Law Society, Austin, TX.

Melara, R. D., DeWitt-Rickards, T. S., & O’Brien, T. P. (1989). Enhancing lineup identification accuracy: Two codes are better than one. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 706–713.

Memon, A. & Gabbert, F. (2002, March). Sequential Testing Reduces All Choices: False and Correct. Paper presented at the meetings of the American Psychology – Law Society, Austin, TX.

Memon, A. & Gabbert, F. (in press). Improving the identification accuracy of senior witnesses: Do pre-lineup questions and sequential testing help? Journal of Applied Psychology.

Memon, A., & Bartlett, J. (2002). The effects of verbalization on face recognition in younger and older adults. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 16, 635–650.

Memon, A., & Gabbert, F. (2003). Improving the identification accuracy of senior witnesses: Do pre-lineup questions and sequential testing help? Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 341–347.

Memon, A., & Gabbert, F. (2003). Unraveling the effects of sequential presentation in culprit present lineups. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 703–714.

Narby, D. J., Cutler, B. L., & Penrod, S. D. (1996). The effects of witness, target, and situational factors on eyewitness identifications. In S. L. Sporer, R. S. Malpass, & G. Koehnken (Eds.), Psychological issues in eyewitness identification (pp. 23–52). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

National Research Council. (1996). Evaluation of forensic DNA evidence: Update on evaluating DNA evidence. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Newman, K. (1998). The effects of a weak memory trace on sequential and simultaneous lineup identifications. Unpublished undergraduate thesis, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.

Parker, J. F., & Ryan, V. (1993). An attempt to reduce guessing behavior in children’s and adults’ eyewitness identifications. Law and Human Behavior, 17, 11–26.

Parker, J., Tredoux, C., & Nunez, D. (2000, March). Lineup measures, lineup procedure, and optimality of encoding. Poster session presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society, New Orleans, LA.

Phillips, M. R., McAuliff, B. D., Kovera, M. B., & Cutler, B. L. (1999). Double-blind photoarray administration as a safeguard against investigator bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 940–951.

Read, J. D., Yuille, J. C., & Tollestrup, P. (1992). Recollections of a robbery: Effects of arousal and alcohol upon recall and person identification. Law and Human Behavior, 16, 425–446.

Rombough, V. J. (1994). The effects of lineup presentation and practice on lineup identification accuracy in child eyewitnesses. Unpublished undergraduate thesis, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada

Shapiro, L. R. & Hiatt, R. A. (2002, March). A Comparison of Photographic Line-up Procedures. Paper presented at the meetings of the American Psychology – Law Society, Austin, TX.

Shapiro, L. R., & Hiatt, T. A. (2003). How to pick a “perp”: An investigation of photographic lineup procedures. Unpublished manuscript. Shapiro, P., & Penrod, S. D. (1986). A meta-analysis of the facial identification literature. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 139–156.

Smyth, L. (1994). Sequential presentation and practice: The jury is still out. Unpublished undergraduate thesis, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.

Sporer, S. L. (1993). Eyewitness identification accuracy, confidence, and decision times in simultaneous and sequential lineups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 22–33.

Sporer, S. L. (1996). Psychological aspects of person descriptions. In S. L. Sporer, R. S. Malpass, & G. Ko¨hnken (Eds.), Psychological issues in eyewitness identification (pp. 53–86). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Sporer, S.L. (1993). Eyewitness Identification Accuracy, Confidence, and Decision Times in Simultaneous and Sequential Lineups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 22-33.

Steblay, N. M. (1997). Social influence in eyewitness recall: A meta-analytic review of lineup instruction effects. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 283–297.

Steblay, N., Dysart, J., Fulero, S., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (2001). Eyewitness accuracy rates in sequential and simultaneous lineup presentations: A meta-analytic comparison. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 459–473.

Technical Working Group for Eyewitness Evidence. (1999). Eyewitness evidence: A guide for law enforcement (NCJ No. 178240). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/pubs-sum/178240.htm.

Tredoux, C. G. (1998). Statistical inference on measures of lineup fairness. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 217–237.

Tredoux, C. G. (1999). Statistical considerations when determining measures of lineup size and lineup bias. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13, S9–S26.

Tunnicliff, J. L., & Clark, S. E. (2000). Selecting foils for identification lineups: Matching suspects or descriptions? Law and Human Behavior, 24, 231–258.

Vanderwal, A. (1996). The effects of the sequential presentation of lineups with multiple culprits on eyewitness identification. Unpublished undergraduate thesis, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.

Varrette, T. K. (1994). The effects of similarity-to-suspect versus match-to-description strategies for selecting lineup foils when culprit appearance has been altered. Unpublished undergraduate thesis, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.

Wells, G. (2001). You Asked About the Sequential Lineup: Could You Read This First? http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/faculty/gwells/Youaskedaboutsequential.htm

Wells, G. L. (1978). Applied eyewitness-testimony research: System variables and estimator variables. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1546–1557.

Wells, G. L. (1984). The psychology of lineup identifications. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 14, 89–103.

Wells, G. L. (1993). What do we know about eyewitness identification? American Psychologist, 48, 553–571.

Wells, G. L. (2002, Fall). Expert opinion. American Psychology-Law Society News, 22, pp. 14–15.

Wells, G. L., & Bradfield, A. L. (1998). “Good, you identified the suspect”: Feedback to eyewitnesses distorts their reports of the witnessing experience. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 360–376.

Wells, G. L., & Luus, C. A. E. (1990). Police lineups as experiments: Social methodology as a framework for properly conducted lineups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16, 106–117.

Wells, G. L., & Windschitl, P. D. (1999). Stimulus sampling and social psychological experimentation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1115–1125.

Wells, G. L., Malpass, R. S., Lindsay, R. C. L., Fisher, R. P., Turtle, J. W., & Fulero, S. M. (2000). From the lab to the police station: A successful application of eyewitness research. American Psychologist, 55, 581–598.

Wells, G. L., Seelau, E. P., Rydell, S. M., & Luus, C. A. E. (1994). Recommendations for properly conducted lineup identification tasks. In D. F. Ross, J. D. Read, & M. Toglia (Eds.), Adult eyewitness testimony: Current trends and developments (pp. 223–244). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Wells, G. L., Small, M., Penrod, S., Malpass, R. S., Fulero, S. M., & Brimacombe, C. A. E. (1998). Eyewitness identification procedures: Recommendations for lineups and photospreads. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 603–647.

Willis, C. E. (1990). Strategies in eyewitness identification. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas.

Wogalter, M. S., Malpass, R. S., & McQuiston, D. E. (2004). A national survey of U.S. police on preparation and conduct of identification lineups. Psychology, Crime & Law, 10, 69–82.

Wogalter, M. S., Marwitz, D. B., & Leonard, D. C. (1992). Suggestiveness in photospread lineups: Similarity induces distinctiveness. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 6, 443–453.

Zimmerman, L. A., Malpass, R. S., & MacLin, O. H. (2006). Unconfounding the simultaneous vs. sequential lineup comparison. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Bibliographies | Consultation | Current Research | Lab Members | Lab Publications | Links | Contact Us | Home