Simultnus and Squntil Lin-U rdurs - Literature review Example

Literature Review Simultаnеоus and Sеquеntiаl Linе-Uр Рrосеdurеs Name: Course: Tutor: Date: Abstract Empirical research conducted looks into the ways of improving the process of eyewitness identification and emphasis lies on the use of lineups. The recommendation given to the police is that sequential lineups are best practices to be employed. However, the current literature reveals that the conditions showing sequential lineups being superior to simultaneous lineups are not well understood hence; are premature. Studies reported have insufficient details, and judgment should be considered for adequacy of research design. As such new data discloses that the superiority effect of sequential lineups are bound to vary since adequate tests have not been done on theoretical assumptions, there is a lack of comparison that bring out ostensible superiority; and the function of study methodology. Therefore, much more research is essential before adopting the sequential procedure. In this discussion, we give a comprehensive review of the empirical evidence presented in the areas of sequential and simultaneous lineups. The use of books and articles (peer reviewed journals) give detailed information on both SIML and SEQL and support facts presented by giving evidence. Introduction In the United States, two common lineup procedures employed are: the simultaneous lineup (SIML) and sequential lineup (SEQL). Researchers have conducted empirical research on sequential line-up procedures and have found inconsistencies and accuracy rates due to its suggestive and is less fair compared to simultaneous line-up procedures. Sequential line-up presentation is where viewing is done on an individual basis, and others are not viewed until a response, either “yes” or “no” is given (Diallo, 2013). As compared to simultaneous presentation, the general identification rate does not increase in sequential. However, the false alarm present decreases. Simultaneous presentation is known to be a traditional or standard line-up procedure normally used by police for eyewitness identification (Wogalter, Malpass & McQuiston, 2004). In this case, all members, line-up for viewing by witnesses at the same time. Hence, an array of faces is showed to witnesses at once and includes the innocent (foils) and the suspect. For many, this system is unfair, but the associated rate of false alarm is problematic (Diallo, 2013). Moreover, many witnesses make relative judgments due to the inducement while viewing members on the lineup thus; are prompted to make a lineup decision (Kneller, Memon & Stevenage, 2001). Sequential line-up is effective for use by many authorities including the police force because it eliminates reliance of witness on their relative judgment. Thereby, allows them a chance to make comparisons that are absolute. This is possible because they use their stored memory of the perpetrator and compares it to the members on the lineup. In some instances, photographs are given to witnesses who are able to use for succession purposes (Lindsay, 2002; Lindsay et al., 2009; Phillips, McAuliff, Kovera & Cutler, 1999). Studies conducted indicate that SEQLs have managed to reduce false identifications and have increased the correct lineup rejections (Kneller, Memon & Stevenage, 2001; Lindsay, 2002). However, researchers have argued that SEQLs are superior under certain conditions (Steblay et al., 2001; Lindsay et al., 2009). These conditions need to be investigated further in order to reduce the chances of having victims use this loophole to their advantage. It is essential or police reformers to eliminate any chance of having results tampered with because it increases the chance of having a repeat of the action. The rewriting of eyewitness identification policies has been conducted by many states and communities around the globe. Simultaneous lineups are being excluded by some jurisdictions because they are superior compared to sequential lineup. As a result, authors use policy-analysis in their study in examining the best utility procedure to apply between sequential and simultaneous (Malpass, 2006; Lindsay et al., 2014). In psychological research, variables weaken the validity and reliability of experimental findings, and no exception is given towards the eyewitness identification studies conducted (Steblay et al., 2001). These reviews of both published and unpublished literature have helped us discover important issues that have not been considered when designing SIML versus SEQL studies. Many of the researchers used experimental designs and case studies to bring out a clear picture of how effective SEQLs are compared to SIMLs (Steblay et al., 2001; Malpass, 2006; Lindsay, 2002; Diallo, 2013). Moreover, others used field experiments that managed to get information from those affected by violence and crimes in the society. In addition, lab-controlled experiments are also considered by some authors because it is an effective way of getting the cause-affect relations. From this lab-based research on literature, most of the current literature of how lineups can be improved exists (Wells & Penrod, 2011). The removal-without-replacement is a reliable effect of lab experiments and has founded arguments on the relative-judgment process that illustrate findings. The experiments use participants who are not real eyewitnesses to actual crimes thereby, do not experience stress levels and fear faced by actual eyewitnesses. Hence, majority of the participants used are college students. In most cases, the method used in collecting field study data would include software development that randomly scrambles for pictures. The police also collected information from people through use of interviews, questionnaires and surveys (Lindsay, 2002; Lindsay et al., 2009; Steblay et al., 2001). Al these were useful for the department because it gave them a clear view of what other people tell of the incident. A lot of work needs to be accomplished by the police force in regards to collecting information for the case. This comes in handy when presenting evidence in courts. It is essential for any research conducted to have all this because it shows that the information supplied is reliable and valid. The literature used in collecting information concerning the effectiveness of simultaneous versus sequential lineup support the use of sequential lineup. However, not much evidence is available on how it is preferred to simultaneous lineup procedure. Nonetheless, many authors support that lineup procedures are the best when it comes to eyewitness identification process (Steblay et al., 2001; Malpass, 2006; Lindsay, 2002; Diallo, 2013; Wells & Penrod, 2011). Therefore, it is crucial for all involved parties to be aware of how to handle the witnesses in order to avoid cases of biases during court presentations. This will promote the employment of co-operation among community members and the police force fostering peace in the land. Police reforms have also recommended the use of certain software, which requires them to undergo certain training in order to understand how the program works. Studies conducted on the effectiveness of sequential versus simultaneous lineup procedures have been conducted for many years. This has seen improvements made on how court proceedings are conducted to promote fairness in terms of conviction. It is true that simultaneous lineup presentation has minor manageable errors, here and there, but it is a good procedure to go by when looking at crimes and investigations conducted at the grassroots’ levels (Carlson, Gronlund & Clark, 2008; Lindsay & Wells, 1985; Lindsay, Ross, Read & Toglia, 2014). For sequential lineup, this is also effective when we look at crime scenes that are more complex and need the protection of the witness to avoid loss of another persons’ life. This presentation also reduces the chances of having many witnesses confuse the victim because viewing is done simultaneously. The truth of the fact is that both simultaneous and sequential lineup procedures are methods that are effective when it comes to eyewitness identification. These presentations have been able to be applied by many reform organizations around the globe and have proved to be effective and reliable. Conclusion According to researches, it is evident that switching to sequential line-up procedures from simultaneous procedures have reduced and lowered the rates of identifying innocent suspects as culprits. Miller asserts that if psychology was to be given away, it is important that we give away accurate information (1969). The obvious reason for this is in regard to law issues, organizations enforcing law are forced to comply with the psychological gifts dictates presented by the legislation. Alternative technologies within the public policy are laudable, and the work on sequential lineup is pioneering (Lindsay, et al., 2009; Malpass, 2006). Nevertheless, research conducted have not shown how they are superior to simultaneous lineup or others that intend to replace them. In field settings, techniques under lineup administration have been carried out, and more are underway. On the other hand, they have faced numerous obstacles in terms of their useful interpretation (Malpass & Ross, 2008; Ross & Malpass, 2008). For law enforcers, finding superior techniques during eyewitness identification is a work in progress. The effectiveness of SIMLs and SEQLs has been shown by the literature provided in this article. Therefore, it is an effective procedure to use when looking or eyewitness involved in a crime or violence scene. The differences shown of simultaneous and sequential lineup procedures have given the presentations a strong point to give their arguments concerning the effectiveness of the procedures. It is always important to look at empirical research in order to give concise information on the best method to be applied in such instances. Since research is still ongoing on the debate of sequential lineup being the best method or procedure, it is likely that many will use the two presentations to avoid biasness and unfair judgment. Studies also support that these procedures are reliable and valid because they have been investigated by many and the results are the same. References Carlson, C., Gronlund, S. & Clark, S. (2008). Lineup composition, suspect position, and the sequential lineup advantage. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 14, 118–128. Diallo, K. (2013). Eyewitness Identification: how witnesses pick out a suspect? Global Virtual Conference. Kneller, W., Memon, A. & Stevenage, S. (2001). Simultaneous and sequential lineups: Decision procedures of accurate and inaccurate eyewitnesses. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 15, 659-671. Lindsay, R. & Wells, G. (1985). Improving eyewitness identifications from lineups: Simultaneous versus sequential lineup presentation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 556-564. Lindsay, R. (2002). Limitations of sequential lineups. Unpublished manuscript. Lindsay, R., Mansour, J., Beaudry, J, Leach, A. & Bertrand, M. (2009). Sequential lineup presentation: Patterns and policy. Legal and Criminology Psychology, 14(1), 13-24. Lindsay, R., Ross, D., Read, J. & Toglia, M. (2014). Handbook of eyewitness psychology 2 volume set. New York, NY: Psychology Press. Malpass, R. (2006). A policy evaluation of simultaneous and sequential lineups, Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 12(4), 394-418. Malpass R. & Ross, S. (2008, June). Implications of existing field and archival studies for field study design. Presented at the meeting of the eyewitness identification study group. National Institute of Justice, Washington, D.C. Miller, G. A. (1969). Psychology as a means of promoting human welfare. American Psychologist, 24, 1063–1075. Phillips, R., McAuliff, D., Kovera, B. & Cutler, L. (1999). Double-blind photo array administration as a safeguard against investigator bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 940-951. Ross S. & Malpass R. (2008, March). Improved methodological standards for field evaluations of eyewitness identification procedures. Paper presented at the meetings of the American Psychology-Law Society, Jacksonville, FL. Steblay, N., Dysart, J., Fulero, S. Lindsay, R. (2001). Eyewitness accuracy rates in sequential and simultaneous lineup presentations: A meta-analytic comparison. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 459-473. Wells, G. & Penrod, S. (2011). Eyewitness identification research: Strengths and weaknesses of alternative methods. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons. Wogalter, M., Malpass, R. & McQuiston, D. (2004). A national survey of U.S. police on preparation and conduct of identification lineups. Psychology, Crime & Law, 10, 69-82. Read More