Encyclopedia of Psychology and Law

Eyewitness Identification: Field Studies

Contributors: Nancy K. Steblay

Editors: Brian L. Cutler
Book Title: Encyclopedia of Psychology and Law
Chapter Title: "Eyewitness Identification: Field Studies"
Pub. Date: 2008
Access Date: June 08, 2015
Publishing Company: SAGE Publications, Inc.
City: Thousand Oaks
Print ISBN: 9781412951890
Online ISBN: 9781412959537
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412959537.n113
Print pages: 291-292
2008 SAGE Publications, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

This PDF has been generated from SAGE knowledge. Please note that the pagination
of the online version will vary from the pagination of the print book.

Open University
2008 SAGE Publications, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

SAGE knowledge

http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412959537.n113
A substantial base of laboratory research is now available to aid our understanding
of eyewitness identification processes and to support recommendations for lineup
reform. However, there are also a limited number of peer-reviewed, published studies
that measure eyewitness responses in real police cases. Although few, the studies
include large-scale investigations involving a sizable combined sample of eyewitnesses
(4000+). The traditional simultaneous lineup format in these studies produces a modal
suspect identification (SI) rate of around 40% to 50% and a filler selection rate of
approximately 20%.
Field studies bring unique strengths and weaknesses to research efforts, capturing
eyewitness decisions in the most forensically relevant settings but under circumstances
that lack the control and precision of the lab. Existing field studiesarchival summaries
of police reports and descriptive data from pilot researcheffectively augment
laboratory findings.
Each witness decision for a field lineup falls into one of three response categories:
(1) an SI, (2) a filler identification, or (3) no choice from the lineup. A challenge for
eyewitness field research is that an unknown percentage of real-world lineups do not
include the perpetrator. Suspect selections cannot be directly equated with accurate
identifications, because any false identification of an innocent suspect is contained
within the SI category. Filler selections (foils [innocent persons] or false alarms)
are known errors and signal investigators that the witness has a poor memory or is
uncooperative, or that the filler is a better match to the offender than is the suspect. No
choice responses (a lineup rejection) include witnesses unable or unwilling to make
a lineup selection. These limitations of data interpretation must be kept in mind as the
following field studies are examined.
Archival field studies provide baseline data regarding eyewitness responses under
traditional lineup practicea simultaneous display of lineup members administered by
an investigator who knows the identity of the suspect. Some field information is also
available for showupsa single-member lineup.
An early examination of 224 identifications made by eyewitnesses to real crimes in
California revealed an SI rate of 56% and a showup SI rate of 22%. A year later, a
Page 3 of 6

Encyclopedia of Psychology and Law: Eyewitness

Identification: Field Studies

Open University
2008 SAGE Publications, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

SAGE knowledge

1994 study in Vancouver, Canada, detailed 170 identification attempts, 90% from
simultaneous photo lineups. The authors reported SI rates for robbery victims (46%)
and witnesses (33%) and for fraud victims (25%).
[p. 291 ] A larger sample of police files was reviewed in 2001 for 689 California
identification attempts following crimes ranging from homicide to theft. Similar rates of
SI were found for 284 simultaneous photo lineups (48% SI) and 58 live simultaneous
lineups (50% SI). Live lineup decisions produced 24% false alarms and 26% lineup
rejections. (Researchers do not always separate filler and no choice decisions, often
because police reports do not provide this level of detail.) Showup identification rates
were similar whether live (258) or photo (18)76% and 83% SI, respectivelyand
significantly higher than rates for the full array. Of particular interest were 66 lineup
identifications by eyewitnesses who had made an earlier identification of the same
suspect. Significantly more SIs were made in later attempts (62%) compared with
witnesses attempting a single identification (45%). A 2005 update of the California
simultaneous lineup data, including overlap with the earlier data set, produced an SI
rate of 52% for photo and 46% for live lineups; filler picks were at 15% for the overall
group.
Additional archival summaries come from researchers in England. These include 2,200
witness identifications for 930 live, simultaneous identity parades. Outcome similarities
across studies are evident (also including an unpublished third study of 843 witnesses
and 302 lineups by the London police): When the offender was not known previously to
the witness, approximately 40% of witnesses identified the suspect, 20% chose a filler,
and 40% made no choice from the lineup. When the perpetrator was previously known,
not surprisingly, SI was more likely.
Along with recent reforms in lineup practice, data are emerging that capture eyewitness
responses under double-blind sequential lineup practicea one-at-atime presentation
of lineup members, administered by an investigator who does not know the identity of
the suspect. A 2006 Minnesota pilot project generated SI rates of 54%, fillers 8%, and
no choice 38%. This field study also showed that repeated viewing of a lineup by the
witness was associated with a reduction in SIs and rising filler selections.

Page 4 of 6

Encyclopedia of Psychology and Law: Eyewitness

Identification: Field Studies

Open University
2008 SAGE Publications, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

SAGE knowledge

Some of these descriptive studies have also attempted to examine the impact
on witness decisions of crime-incident features, such as weapon presence. The
researchers are careful to point out the dangers of comparing pseudo-experimental
conditions. For example, weapon absence may be confounded with crime type (fraud
vs. robbery) and, therefore, also with differential witness attention, quality of culprit
description, and delay prior to lineup. While substantial support has been found in
controlled laboratory tests for the negative impact of factors such as weapon presence,
delay, and cross-race identification, field studies present inconsistent results. The
difficulty of interpreting study results following nonrandom assignment is illustrated by a
London research team, comparing a lineup suite with a standard police-station setting.
The researchers noted that lineups assigned to the suite differed in important ways
from those assigned to ordinary police stations: time lapsed since the crime event, race
of the suspect, and crime violence. Lineup setting was confounded with other critical
factors.
Finally, an ancillary line of hybrid lab-field research has developed around testing
for fairness of real lineups. A mock witness procedure requires lab participants, who
have not seen the crime and are armed only with the culprit description provided by
the real witness, to identify the suspect from the lineup. This procedure is typically
used to evaluate individual lineups suspected of biased structure. An emerging use of
this paradigm is to analyze a sample of lineups from a jurisdiction of interest. Lineup
fairness was tested in England using this procedure, demonstrating video lineups to
be fairer than photos. In the Minnesota pilot of double-blind sequential lineups, a mock
witness procedure confirmed fair lineup construction through a sample of field lineups.
As we look to the future, there is great potential for information gain in well-designed
experimental field tests that include methodological necessities such as random
assignment and double-blind administration, but data from such tests are not yet
available.
Nancy K.Steblay
http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412959537.n113
See Also:

Page 5 of 6

Encyclopedia of Psychology and Law: Eyewitness

Identification: Field Studies

Open University
2008 SAGE Publications, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

SAGE knowledge

Estimator and System Variables in Eyewitness Identification

Eyewitness Memory
Showups
Simultaneous and Sequential Lineup Presentation

Further Readings
Klobuchar, A., Steblay, N., Caligiuri, H. Improving eyewitness identifications: Hennepin
County's Blind Sequential Lineup Pilot Project . Cardozo Public Law, Policy & Ethics
Journal 4 (2006). 381413
Valentine, T., Pickering, A., Darling, S. Characteristics of eyewitness identification that
predict the outcome of real lineups . Applied Cognitive Psychology 17 (2003). 969
993http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acp.939

Page 6 of 6

Encyclopedia of Psychology and Law: Eyewitness

Identification: Field Studies