1. Heather Caspers

2. Preview  Background  Sequential Superiority Effect ○ Order effects ○ Choosers v. Non-choosers ○ Number of passes

3. Background  Lineup instructions (Malpass & Devine, 1981)  Lindsay and Wells (1985) introduced sequential lineup Absolute vs. relative responding  Illinois Report Response

4. Lineup administration  Target-present, target-absent Possible decisions in target-present: correct: identify target, incorrect: reject lineup or identify foil Possible decisions in target-absent: correct: reject lineup, incorrect: identify foil  Without replacement (Clark & Davey, 2005; Wells, 1993)

5. Sequential Superiority Effect  Steblay et al., 2001 meta-analysis Correct rejection higher in sequential lineups  Also examined moderator variables

6. Sequential Superiority Effect  McQuiston-Surrett et al., 2006 meta- analysis Moderator variables  Target-to-foil shift in both sequential and simultaneous lineups (Clark & Davey, 2005) Order effects

7. Choosers vs. Non-choosers  Choice as a moderator regarding accuracy-confidence relationship Sporer, 1993

8. Number of Passes  Sequential superiority effect disappears when participants take more than one pass (MacLin & Phelan, 2007)

9. PC_Eyewitness  Similar to paper-and-pencil administration (MacLin et al., 2005)  Helpful to police officers  Lineup recognition paradigm Meissner et al., 2005

10. Lineup research  Need to examine factors influencing decision processes surrounding simultaneous and sequential lineups Signal detection theory explanations (Meissner et al., 2005) Issues concerning similarity

11. References Clark, S. E., & Davey, S. L. (2005). The target-to-foils shift in simultaneous and sequential lineups. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 151-172. 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. MacLin, O. H., & Phelan, C. M. (2007). PC_Eyewitness: Evaluating the New Jersey method. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 242-247 MacLin, O. H., Zimmerman, L. A., & Malpass, R. S. (2005). PC_Eyewitness and the sequential superiority effect: Computer- based lineup administration. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 303-321. Malpass, R. S., & Devine, P. G. (1981). Eyewitness identification: Lineup instructions and the absence of the offender. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 482-489.

12. References McQuiston-Surrett, D., Malpass, R. S., & Tredoux, C. G. (2006). Sequential vs. simultaneous lineups: A review of methods, data, and theory. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 12, 147-169. 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. Sporer, S. L. (1993). Eyewitness identification accuracy, confidence, and decision times in simultaneous and sequential lineups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 22-33. 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. Wells, G. L. (1993). What do we know about eyewitness identification? American Psychologist, 48, 553-557.