Eyewitnesses: A comparison of live, video, and photo line-ups

  • José H. Kerstholt
  • Erwin R. Koster
  • Adri G. van Amelsvoort


An experiment was conducted in which the effectiveness of three line-up methods (live, video, and photographs) was compared. Participants witnessed a staged event and were subsequently required, by one of the three methods, to identify the target. Both target-present and target-absent line-ups were used. The results showed that all methods led to an equal number of correct identifications (hits). In the target-absent line-ups, participants more often incorrectly identified a person in the video and photographs condition than in the live condition. Presenting photographs simultaneously or sequentially did not affect the number of correct judgments. Dynamic video images, showing locomotion and facial expression, had a marginal significant effect on the number of correct judgments as compared with the static video images. Practical implications are discussed.


False Alarm Facial Expression Criminal Psychology Correct Judgment Eyewitness Identification 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bothwell, R.K., Brigham J.C., & Deffenbacher, K.A. (1987). Correlation of eyewitness accuracy and confidence: optimality hypothesis revisited.Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 691–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cutler, B.L., Berman, G.L., Penrod, S., & Fisher, R.P. (1994). Conceptual, practical, and empirical issues associated with eyewitness identification test media. In D.F. Ross, J.D. Read and M.D. Toglia (eds.):Adult eyewitness testing: current trends and developments. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Cutler, B.L., & Fisher, R.P. (1990). Live line-ups, videotaped line-ups, and photoarrays.Forensic Reports, 2, 93–106.Google Scholar
  4. Cutler, B.L., Fisher, R.P., & Chicvara, C.L. (1989). Eyewitness identification from live versus videotaped line-ups.Forensic Reports, 2, 93–106.Google Scholar
  5. Cutler, B.L., Fisher, R.P., & Chicvara, C.L. (1989). Eyewitness identification from live versus videotaped line-ups.Forensic Reports, 2, 93–106.Google Scholar
  6. Cutler, B.L., & Penrod, S.D. (1988). Improving the reliability of eyewitness identification: line-up construction and presentation.Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 281–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cutler, B.L., Penrod, S.D., & Martens, T.K. (1987). Improving the reliability of eyewitness identification: putting context into context.Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 629–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dent, H.R. (1977). Stress as a factor influencing person recognition in identification parades.Bulletin of British Psychology, 30, 339–340.Google Scholar
  9. Dunning, D., & Stern, L.B. (1994). Distinguishing accurate from inaccurate eyewitness identifications via inquiries about decision processes.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 818–835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Edwards, K. (1998). The face of time: Temporal cues in facial expressions of emotions.Psychological Science, 9, 270–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kerstholt, J.H., Raaijmakers, J.G.W., & Valeton, J.M. (1992). The effect of expectation on the identification of known and unknown persons.Applied Cognitive Psychology, 6, 173–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lindsay, R.C.L., & Wells, G.L. (1985). Improving eyewitness identifications from line-ups: simultaneous versus sequential line-up presentation.Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 556–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. O'Rourke, T.E., Penrod, S.D., Cutler, B.L. & Stuve, T.E. (1989). The external validity of eyewitness identification research: Generalizing across subject populations.Law and Human Behavior, 13, 385–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Shapiro, P.N., & Penrod, S. (1986). Meta-analysis of facial identification studies.Psychological Bulletin, 100, 139–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Sporer, S.L. (1993). Eyewitness identification accuracy, confidence, and decision times in simultaneous and sequential line-ups.Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 22–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Sporer, S.L., Penrod, S., Read, D., & Cutler, B. (1995). Choosing, confidence and accuracy: a meta-analysis of the confidence-accuracy relation in eyewitness identification studies.Psychological Bulletin, 118, 315–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Wagenaar, W.A. (1969). Note on the construction of digram-balanced latin squares.Psychological Bulletin, 72, 384–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Police and Criminal Psychology 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • José H. Kerstholt
    • 1
  • Erwin R. Koster
    • 1
  • Adri G. van Amelsvoort
    • 2
  1. 1.TNO Human Factors Research InstituteSoesterbergThe Netherlands
  2. 2.LSOP Police Education and Knowledge CentreApeldoornThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations