How should witnesses regulate the accuracy of their identification decisions: one step forward, two steps back?

Explorations of memory accuracy control normally contrast forced-report with free-report performance across a set of items and show a trade-off between memory quantity and accuracy. However, this memory control framework has not been tested with lineup identifications that may involve rejection of all alternatives. A large-scale (N = 439) lineup study explored regulation of identification decisions either with an initial forced-choice decision followed by free-report decision or with the reverse. Overall, initial free-report decisions provided stronger evidence of suspect guilt than forced-choice decisions, with little cost to memory quantity. The 2 response orders produced different patterns of response associated with control of accuracy. A model based on evaluation of the strength of the best candidate answer was able to provide only a partial fit to the data, suggesting that witnesses use more than simple memory strength of a candidate answer when controlling the accuracy of their responses in free report.