{"id":{"repo_id":"uoit","oai_identifier":"oai:ontariotechu.scholaris.ca:10155/448"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/uoit/oai:ontariotechu.scholaris.ca:10155/448","repository":{"repo_id":"uoit","name":"Ontario Institute of Technology","base_url":"https://ontariotechu.scholaris.ca/server/oai/request"},"display":{"title":"An applied comparison of eyewitness lineup procedures: New Jersey v. England and Wales' PACE v. New York.","abstract":"In 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.","abstract_html":"In 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.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Jehu, Michael"],"institution":"University of Ontario Institute of Technology","degree_name":"Master of Arts (MA)","degree_level":null,"degree_discipline":"Applied Bioscience","degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":[],"advisors":["Cutler, Brian L."],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2014,"date_issued":"2014-07-01","date_published":"2014-07-01","updated_at":"2026-07-24T05:35:22Z","subjects":["New Jersey","PACE","New York","Sequential","Simultaneous"],"languages":["en"],"rights":[],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[]},"links":{"outbound_url":"https://hdl.handle.net/10155/448","outbound_label":"Handle","outbound_source":"dc:identifier.uri"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor.advisor","label":"Advisor","values":["Cutler, Brian L."]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Jehu, Michael"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date.accessioned","label":"Dc Date Accessioned","values":["2014-09-22T20:06:25Z","2022-03-30T17:06:17Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.available","label":"Dc Date Available","values":["2014-09-22T20:06:25Z","2022-03-30T17:06:17Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.issued","label":"Date","values":["2014-07-01"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["Thesis"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_discipline","label":"Discipline","values":["Applied Bioscience"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["Master of Arts (MA)"]},{"key":"thesis:institution_name","label":"Thesis Institution Name","values":["University of Ontario Institute of Technology"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["New Jersey","PACE","New York","Sequential","Simultaneous"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:language.iso","label":"Language (ISO)","values":["en"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.uri","label":"Identifier URI","values":["https://hdl.handle.net/10155/448"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["In 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."]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["An applied comparison of eyewitness lineup procedures: New Jersey v. England and Wales' PACE v. New York."]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor.advisor":["Cutler, Brian L."],"dc:creator":["Jehu, Michael"],"dc:date.accessioned":["2014-09-22T20:06:25Z","2022-03-30T17:06:17Z"],"dc:date.available":["2014-09-22T20:06:25Z","2022-03-30T17:06:17Z"],"dc:date.issued":["2014-07-01"],"dc:description.abstract":["In 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."],"dc:identifier.uri":["https://hdl.handle.net/10155/448"],"dc:language.iso":["en"],"dc:subject":["New Jersey","PACE","New York","Sequential","Simultaneous"],"dc:title":["An applied comparison of eyewitness lineup procedures: New Jersey v. England and Wales' PACE v. New York."],"dc:type":["Thesis"],"thesis:degree_discipline":["Applied Bioscience"],"thesis:degree_name":["Master of Arts (MA)"],"thesis:institution_name":["University of Ontario Institute of Technology"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-24T05:35:22Z"}