Cutler, Brian L.Jehu, Michael2014-09-222022-03-302014-09-222022-03-302014-07-01https://hdl.handle.net/10155/448In response to the growing recognition of wrongful conviction and the role that mistaken identification (ID) plays in these miscarriages of justice, some countries, states, and police departments have developed new guidelines for eyewitness ID procedures (Smith & Cutler, 2013a). The guidelines vary considerably, however, in their recommendations. The present research compared the performance of three reformed, ‘packaged’ lineup procedures: The New Jersey, England and Wales’ PACE (Police and Criminal Evidence), and New York procedures. The benefit of having examined current lineup procedures in a laboratory environment was that it allowed for precise measures of accuracy. Lineup type did not influence correct IDs in perpetrator-present conditions, but correct rejections were significantly more likely in the New York procedure when the perpetrator was absent. Causal conclusions from the findings could not be derived in view of the applied nature of the experiment, but important implications for policy and research are discussed.enNew JerseyPACENew YorkSequentialSimultaneousThesis