Testing partial memory with the British video lineup
On pension from the police of Israel
Levi has hypothesized that witnesses with poor memory discount some lineup members as not fitting their partial memory of the target, thereby picking him often. In a comparison between British 10-person video lineups and 48-person lineups, they did not differ in identifications. Perhaps sequential video lineups prevented witnesses from hitting upon the discounting strategy. Fifty were asked to count the number of lineup members that they could discount, and then were given the lineup. Others were given the lineup first. We expected that the former group would have more identifications No difference was found. Reasons for this were discussed.
Keywords: Testing partial memory with the British video lineup
How to cite this article:
Avraham Levi. Testing partial memory with the British video lineup. International Journal of Psychological Research and Reviews, 2019, 2:14.
1. Clark, S. E. (2005). A Re-examination of the Effects of Biased Lineup instructions in eyewitness identification. Law and Human Behavior, Vol. 29, 575-604.
2. Conners, E, Lundregan, T, Miller, N, McEwen, T. (1996). Convicted by juries, exonerated by science: Case studies in the use of DNA evidence to establish innocence after trial. Washington: U. S. Department of Justice.
3. Davies, G., Shepherd, J., & Ellis, H. (1979). Effects of interpolated mugshot exposure on accuracy of eyewitness identification. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 232-237.
4. Doob, A. N., & Kirshenbaum, H. M. (1973). Bias in police lineups-partial remembering. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 1, 287-293.
5. Dupuis P. R., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (2007). Radical alternatives to traditional lineups. In R. Lindsay, R. Ross, D. Read, & M. Toglia (Eds). Handbook of eyewitness psychology: Memory for people (Vol. 2, pp. 179-200). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.
6. Holmquist K., Nystrom M., Andersson R., Dewhurst R.,Jarodzka H., & Van De Weijer J. (2011). Eye Tracking. Oxford: Oxford Press.
7. Laughery, K. R., Alexander, J. F., & Lane, A. B. (1971). Recognition ofhuman faces: effects of target exposure time, target position, pose position, and type of photograph. Journal of Applied Psychology, 55, 477-481.
8. Levi, A. M. (1998). Are defendants guilty if they were chosen in a lineup? Law and Human Behavior, 22, 389-407.
9. Levi, A. M. (2006a). An Analysis of Multiple Choices in MSL Lineups, and a Comparison with Simultaneous and Sequential ones. Psychology, Crime, & Law, 12, 273-285.
10. Levi, A. M. (2006b). A Comparison Between Large Simultaneous and MSL Lineups, with Photos Viewed in Sets of Six. In K. Nixon (Ed.) Forensic recall and eyewitness testimony. (pp.91-101) London: IA-IP Publishing.
11. Levi, A. M. (2007). Evidence for Moving to an 84-Person Photo Lineup. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 3,377-391.
12. Levi, A. M. (2012). Much Better than the Sequential lineup: A 120-person lineup. Psychology, Crime & Law, 18, 631-640.
13. Levi A. M. (2015). When the relative judgment theory proved to be false Psychology and Law, 5., pp.141-149.
14. Levi, A. M. (2017). Comparing the English Video Lineup with the 48- Person Lineup. Universal Journal of Psychology, 5 , 239 – 243..
15. Levi, A. M. (2119). Partial memory: Another reason for using large
16. lineups? Legal and criminological psychology,
17. Levi, A. M., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (2001), Issues concerning policyrecommendations: The example of lineups and photospreads. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 7, 776-790.
18. Lindsay, R. C. L., & Wells, G. (1985). Improving eyewitness identifications from lineups: Simultaneous versus sequential lineup presentation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 556-564.
19. Malpass, R. S., & Devine, P. G. (1981). Eyewitness identification: Lineup instructions and the absence of the offender, Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 482-489.
22. Mansour J. K. , Lindsay R. C. L, Brewer N., & Munhall K. G. (2009). Characterizing visual behavior on a lineup task. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 1012 – 1026.
23. Pryke, S., Lindsay, R. C. L., Dysart, J. E., & Dupuis, P. (2004). Multiple independent identification decisions: A method of calibrating eyewitness identifications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 73-84.
24. Scheck, B., Neufeld, P., & Dwyer, J. (2001). Actual innocence: When justice goes wrong and how to make it right. New York: Signet.
26. Sporer S. L. (1993). Eyewitness Identification Accuracy, Confidence, and Decision Times in Simultaneous and Sequential Lineups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 22-33.
27. Steblay, N. K., Dysart, J. E., & Wells, G. L. (2011). Seventy-two tests of the sequential lineup superiority effect: A Meta-Analysis and Policy Discussion. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 17, 99-139.
28. Valentine, T., Pickering, A., & Darling, S. (2003). Characteristics of eyewitness identification that predict the outcome of real lineups. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 969-993.
29. Wells, G. L. (1984). The psychology of lineup identifications. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 14, 89-103.
30. 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, 22, 603-647.