Lineup fairness: propitious heterogeneity and the diagnostic feature-detection hypothesis

Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications

Table 4 Number of identifications and rejections from Experiment 2

Filler selection method	Lineup	Suspect ID rate	Filler ID rate	Rejection rate
Suspect-matched	TP	.38 (81/214)	.45 (97/214)	.17 (36/214)
	TA1	.17 (33/200)	.37 (73/200)	.47 (94/200)
	TA2	.16 (34/210)	.40 (83/210)	.44 (93/210)
Description-matched	TP1	.57 (120/212)	.23 (48/212)	.21 (44/212)
	TP2	.58 (123/211)	.16 (34/211)	.26 (54/211)
	TA1.1	.22 (60/268)	.41 (111/268)	.36 (97/268)
	TA1.2	.33 (71/212)	.21 (44/212)	.46 (97/212)
	TA2.1	.13 (27/210)	.40 (84/210)	.47 (99/210)
	TA2.2	.16 (36/228)	.40 (91/228)	.44 (101/228)

All TP lineups contained the same target; TP1 and TP2 contained different fillers with the same target
There were two innocent suspects (IS) to increase generalizability. Suspect-Matched TA1 contained IS1 and TA2 contained IS2. Description-Matched TA1.1 and TA1.2 each had different fillers with IS1; TA2.1 and TA2.2 each had different fillers with IS2
ID identification, TP target-present, TA target-absent