Dysart, and Wells (2011) In 2011, Steblay, Dysart, and Wells attempted to answer a debate that has been around since the concept of sequential lineups. Are they superior to simultaneous lineups? In an effort to reproduce the results found in previous studies done on sequential lineups, Steblay, Dysart, and Wells took and combined results from 72 tests from 23 different labs from across the world including Canada, the United Kingdom, the United States, Germany, and South Africa. These results included data from 13,143 people who participated as witness in the studies. In this study they found very similar results to previous studies that have been conducted. They found that sequential lineups are less likely to identify any type (whether guilty or not guilty) of a suspect than simultaneous lineups, but that when a suspect was identified he/she was more likely to be guilty using this method than a simultaneous lineup. They found that there is an 8% difference in suspect identification between sequential and simultaneous lineups, favoring simultaneous lineups; meaning that simultaneous lineups are more likely overall to identify the guilty suspect. This finding has decreased since 2001 where there was a 15% difference in favor of simultaneous lineups. They also replicated the findings that there is about a 22% difference between sequential and simultaneous lineups regarding errors in suspect identification; meaning that sequential lineups are less likely to identify the wrong suspect. Fraud The police can falsify the results of a lineup by giving hints to the witness. For example, they may let the witness "accidentally" see their preferred suspect in circumstances indicating criminality (e.g., in handcuffs) before the lineup. This is sometimes called an "Oklahoma showup" and was claimed to have been used in the Caryl Chessman case. Error rate Limitations of technology The use of DNA evidence has allowed for greater accuracy in choosing a suspect. It is evident that misidentification is not uncommon with police lineups. In a study published by the Association for Psychological Science, scientists discovered that in a group of 349 people that had been exonerated with DNA evidence, 258 of these people (roughly 3 out of every 4) were involved in mistaken eyewitness identification. Familiarity Mere exposure to a face can contribute to the illusion that an innocent person is the guilty party. For example, a witness might identify a receptionist as the guilty suspect simply because they had met briefly before,