ArticlePloS one2026
Detection of culprit presence in multiple-culprit crimes: A comparison of combined and separate lineup-presentation formats.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although crimes involving multiple culprits are widespread, there is still a lack of understanding of how the police should construct lineups for multiple suspects in these cases. In most of the few guidelines that exist it is recommended to present multiple lineups separately in succession, with each lineup including one suspect. This replicates, for each suspect in a multiple-culprit case, the procedure used for a single suspect in a single-culprit case. However, this recommendation could be reconsidered if it turned out that, if multiple culprits are present in the lineups, the face of one culprit serves as a contextual facial cue that enhances the eyewitness's ability to detect another culprit within the same display-an effect that could only occur if all lineups are presented together in a combined lineup-presentation format, allowing them to be visible concurrently. Two experiments using a staged-crime video with four culprits were conducted to test whether presenting simultaneous lineups combined as opposed to separately affects culprit-presence detection. In Experiment 1, it was tested whether culprit-presence detection differs between combined and separate lineup-presentation formats. No significant difference was found, indicating comparable performance between the two lineup-presentation formats. In Experiment 2, we compared a condition in which three culprit-present lineups were combined-allowing for multiple potential contextual facial cues-with conditions involving separate lineups and combined lineups with only one culprit-present lineup, where contextual facial cueing was theoretically not possible. Culprit-presence detection did not differ between the combined format with three culprit-present lineups and the other conditions. Given the absence of clear benefits of the combined-lineup-presentation format, a cautious, pragmatic conclusion is to continue presenting each suspect in a separate lineup, consistent with most current recommendations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.