Fig. 1 shows a witness viewing a photographic lineup after seeing a cyclist take a phone from a café table. The researcher wants to compare a standard lineu...

(a) The lineup instruction given by the officer [1], for example standard instruction versus telling the witness that the person may not be present [1]; this is manipulated before the witness makes an identification [1] (b) Any four from: show participants the same filmed/staged phone theft [1]; include a known target or use target-present and target-absent lineups [1]; randomly allocate witnesses to one instruction condition [1]; use the same lineup photographs in both conditions [1]; record whether the witness identifies the target, chooses a filler, or rejects the lineup [1]; compare correct identification rates between conditions [1]; use a delay that is the same for every participant [1] (c) Any six from: the statement reduces the assumption that the offender must be in the lineup [1]; it may reduce pressure to choose someone [1]; witnesses may be more willing to say that the person is absent [1]; this can reduce false-positive identifications in a target-absent lineup [1]; the officer's wording is post-event information [1]; wording can influence how witnesses reconstruct or report event information [1]; it may alter response bias rather than the original encoded memory [1]; an effect on accuracy should be judged using correct and incorrect choices, not choice rate alone [1] (d) Strength: the researcher can standardise the event, photographs, delay and instructions [1]; this gives greater control and makes cause and effect more likely [1]. Weaknesses: a filmed or staged theft may lack the stress of a real crime [1]; therefore ecological validity may be limited [1]; participants may realise the aim and alter their choices due to demand characteristics [1]; using one cyclist/one set of faces limits generalisation to other crimes or witnesses [1]; ethical concern: a deceptive theft scene could cause anxiety [1]; this requires informed consent where possible, a right to withdraw and a careful debrief [1]