Портал психологических изданий PsyJournals.ru
Каталог изданий 126Рубрики 53Авторы 9795Новости 1911Ключевые слова 5095 Правила публикацииВебинарыRSS RSS
Психология и право - №4 / 2015 | Перейти к описанию
Web of Science СС

Включен в Web of Science СС (ESCI)



Рейтинг Science Index РИНЦ 2019

48 место — направление «Психология»

0,217 — показатель журнала в рейтинге SCIENCE INDEX

0,852 — двухлетний импакт-фактор


Психология и право

Издатель: Московский государственный психолого-педагогический университет

ISSN (online): 2222-5196

DOI: https://doi.org/10.17759/psylaw

Лицензия: CC BY-NC 4.0

Издается с 2010 года

Периодичность: 4 номера в год

Формат: сетевое издание

Доступ к электронным архивам: открытый

«Психология и право»

мобильное приложение
для iPad и iPhone

Доступно в App Store
Скачайте бесплатно


Running head: Relative judgment. When the relative judgment theory proved to be false 1381


Леви А.М.
PhD, О пенсии от израильской полиции, Израильская полиция, Иерусалим, Израиль
e-mail: avmlevi@bezeqint.net


A commonly accepted theory is that when witnesses can identify culprits in lineups, they will concentrate on him. On the other hand, when they cannot they compare between lineup members and choose the person most similar to the culprit. Therefore they will divide their gaze more equally between foils. An eye tracker was used with a 48-person lineup (four screens with twelve photos in each) in an attempt to demonstrate the superiority of gaze behavior over the verbal response. Surprisingly witnesses usually concentrated on some foil as much as they did on the target. Alternate theories are required to explain the reduction of false identifications in sequential lineups. The advantage of large lineups was demonstrated. Police may use them in conjunction with eye trackers to find culprits that witnesses focus on despite saying that they are absent, the only known method to increase correct identifications.

Ссылка для цитирования

Фрагмент статьи

The lineup is a procedure in which a person suspected by the police of having committed a crime is shown the suspect, along with a number of known innocent people ("foils"). If a witness chooses the suspect, this is taken as evidence of his guilt by the courts. The lineup is the safest eyewitness identification procedure. However, it is far from perfect. There is ample evidence that witnesses often choose someone who is not the culprit (Conners et al., 1996; Scheck, Neufeld, & Dwyer, 2001, Wells et al., 1998). When they choose someone who is not the suspect but a known innocent, the police know that they have erred. However, by chance witnesses choose a suspect who is innocent 1/N times, where N is the lineup size. With the common American lineup size of six, this will happen 1/6=0.167, or almost 17% of the time.


  1. Brace N. Investigating facial composite construction using eye movements.  Proceedings of Sarmac Conference IX, June 27-29, 2011. NYC.
  2. Conners E, Lundregan T, Miller N, McEwen T. 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, 1996.
  3. Ebbesen E. B., & Flowe H. Simultaneous v. sequential lineups: What do we really know? http://www-psy.ucsd.edu/%7eeebbesen/SimSeq.htm
  4. Holmquist K., Nystrom M., Andersson R., Dewhurst R., Jarodzka H., & Van De Weijer J. Eye Tracking. Oxford: Oxford Press. 2011
  5. Hunter S., & Pike G. Investigating eye movement for sequential video VIPER line-ups. Proceedings of Sarmac Conference IX, June 27-29, 2011. NYC.
  6. Levi A. M. Are defendants guilty if they were chosen in a lineup? Law and Human Behavior, 22, 1998. 389-407.
  7. Levi A. M. An Analysis of Multiple Choices in MSL Lineups, and a Comparison with Simultaneous and Sequential ones. Psychology, Crime, & Law,12,  2006a. 273-285.
  8. Levi A. M. 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) 2006b. London: IA-IP Publishing.
  9. Levi A. M. Evidence for Moving to an 84-Person Photo Lineup Journal of Experimental Criminology, 3, 2007a. 377-391.
  10. Levi A. M. Multiple Choices in Large Sequential Lineups with Children and Adults. Cognitive Technology., 12, 2007. 4-10.
  11. Levi A. M. Much Better than the Sequential lineup: A 120-person lineup. Psychology, Crime & Law, 18, 2012. 631-640.
  12. Levi A. M. (under review). When the relative judgment theory proved to be false.
  13. Lindsay R. C. L, & Wells G. Improving eyewitness identifications from lineups: Simultaneous versus sequential lineup presentation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 1985. 556-564.
  14. Loftus E. F., Loftus G. R., & Messo J. Some facts about 'weapon focus'. Law and Human Behavior, 11, 1987. 55-62.
  15. Mansour J. K. , Lindsay R. C. L, Brewer N., & Munhall K. G. Characterizing visual behavior on a lineup task. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 2009. 1012 - 1026.
  16. Pike G. Violent, realistic and unexpected staged crimes: Do participant- witnesses behave differently? Proceedings of Sarmac Conference IX, June 27-29, 2011. NYC.
  17. Pryke S., Lindsay R. C. L., Dysart J. E., & Dupuis P. Multiple independent identification decisions: A method of calibrating eyewitness identifications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 2004. 73-84.
  18. Scheck B., Neufeld P., & Dwyer J. Actual innocence: When justice goes wrong and how to make it right. New York: Signet. 2001.
  19. Sporer S. L. Eyewitness Identification Accuracy, Confidence, and Decision Times in Simultaneous and Sequential Lineups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 1993. 22-33.
  20. Stebla N., Dysart J., Fulero S., & Lindsay R. C. L. Eyewitness accuracy rates in sequential and simultaneous lineup presentations: A meta-analytic comparison. Law and Human Behavior. 25, 2001. 459-474.
  21. Valentine T., Pickering A., & Darling S. Characteristics of eyewitness identification that predict the outcome of real lineups. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 2003. 969-993.
  22. Wells G. L. The psychology of lineup identifications. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 14, 1984. 89-103
  23. Wells G. L., Small M., Penrod S., Malpass R. S., Fulero S. M., & Brimacombe C.A. E. Eyewitness identification procedures: Recommendations for lineups and photospreads. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 1998. 603-647.
О проекте PsyJournals.ru

© 2007–2021 Портал психологических изданий PsyJournals.ru  Все права защищены

Свидетельство регистрации СМИ Эл № ФС77-66447 от 14 июля 2016 г.


Creative Commons License Репозиторий открытого доступа     Рейтинг репозиториев Webometrics