2007/08/02 by Sheri H. Mecklenburg, Patricia J. Bailey, Mark R. Larson · 1 citation
Neuroscience · Psychology · Medicine · #Memory Processes and Influences #Deception detection and forensic psychology #Radiology practices and education
paper · doi:10.1007/s10979-007-9108-6
openalex publication_date 2007/08/02 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/15
field study examining the efficacy of the sequential, dou ble-blind lineup method. The Illinois data showed that the sequential, double-blind lineups had a known error rate, measured by filler identifications, of 9.2%, whereas the traditional (i.e., simultaneous, non-blind) lineups had a known error rate, also measured by filler identifications, of 2.7%. The Illinois Pilot Report represents a significant advancement in the study of eyewitness identification. Prior to the Illinois Pilot Report, the advocates of the sequential, double-blind lineups relied upon laboratory studies to support calls for policy changes in eyewitness identification. Some practitioners viewed the laboratory studies with skepticism because, among other things, the laboratory studies do not capture the real-world factors vital to assessing the reliability of an eyewitness identifi cation. The laboratory experiments generally attempt to