Eyewitness confidence in simultaneous and sequential lineups: A criterion shift account for sequential mistaken identification overconfidence.

2013 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 345-357 ◽  
Author(s):  
David G. Dobolyi ◽  
Chad S. Dodson
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruth Horry ◽  
Ryan J Fitzgerald ◽  
Jamal K. Mansour

When administering sequential lineups, researchers often inform their participants that only their first yes response will count. This instruction differs from the original sequential lineup protocol and from how sequential lineups are conducted in practice. Participants (N = 896) viewed a videotaped mock crime and viewed a simultaneous lineup, a sequential lineup with a first-yes-counts instruction, or a sequential control lineup (with no first-yes-counts instruction); the lineup was either target-present or target-absent. Participants in the first-yes-counts condition were less likely to identify the suspect and more likely to reject the lineup than participants in the simultaneous and sequential control conditions, suggesting a conservative criterion shift. The diagnostic value of suspect identifications, as measured by partial Area Under the Curve, was lower in the first-yes-counts lineup than in the simultaneous lineup. Results were qualitatively similar for other metrics of diagnosticity, though the differences were not statistically significant. Differences between the simultaneous and sequential control lineups were negligible on all outcomes. The first-yes-counts instruction undermines sequential lineup performance and produces an artefactual simultaneous lineup advantage. Researchers should adhere to sequential lineup protocols that maximize diagnosticity and that would feasibly be implemented in practice, allowing them to draw more generalizable conclusions from their data.


2008 ◽  
Author(s):  
Deah S. Quinlivan ◽  
Gary L. Wells ◽  
Jeffrey S. Neuschatz ◽  
Joy McClung ◽  
Molly Peterson ◽  
...  

2008 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sandro Scielzo ◽  
Stephen M. Fiore ◽  
Florian Jentsch ◽  
Sherri A. Rehfeld

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer E. Dysart ◽  
Gary Wells ◽  
Nancy K. Steblay ◽  
Danielle R. Mitchell

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew Philip Kaesler ◽  
John C Dunn ◽  
Keith Ransom ◽  
Carolyn Semmler

The debate regarding the best way to test and measure eyewitness memory has dominated the eyewitness literature for more than thirty years. We argue that to resolve this debate requires the development and application of appropriate measurement models. In this study we develop models of simultaneous and sequential lineup presentations and use these to compare the procedures in terms of discriminability and response bias. We tested a key prediction of the diagnostic feature detection hypothesis that discriminability should be greater for simultaneous than sequential lineups. We fit the models to the corpus of studies originally described by Palmer and Brewer (2012, Law and Human Behavior, 36(3), 247-255) and to data from a new experiment. The results of both investigations showed that discriminability did not differ between the two procedures, while responses were more conservative for sequential presentation compared to simultaneous presentation. We conclude that the two procedures do not differ in the efficiency with which they allow eyewitness memory to be expressed. We discuss the implications of this for the diagnostic feature detection hypothesis and other sequential lineup procedures used in current jurisdictions.


1996 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-12
Author(s):  
John Obert Voll

The relationships between Islam and the West are complex. Even theperceptions of those relations have an important impact on the nature ofthe interactions. If the basic images that are used in discussing “Islam andthe West” are themselves ill-defiied or viewed in inconsistent ways, therelationships themselves are affected in sometimes dangerous ways.Inconsistent and contradictory terms of analysis can lead to misunderstandingand conflict.One of the most frequent conceptual mistakes made in discussingIslam and the West in the modem era is the identification of “the West”with “modemity.” This mistake has a significant impact on the way peeple view the processes of modernization in the Islamic world as well as onthe way people interpret the relationships between Islam and the West inthe contemporary era.The basic generalizations resulting from the following analysis can bestated simply: 1) “modernity“ is not uniquely “western”; 2) “the West” isnot simply “modernity”; and 3) the identifixation of “the West” with“modemity” has important negative consequences for understanding therelationships between Islam and the West. Modernity and the West aretwo different concepts and historic entities. To use the terms interchangeablyis to invite unnecessary confusion and create possible conflict’andinconsistency. This article will address the problem of definition and theapplication of the defined terms to interpreting actual experiences andrelationships.Understanding the difficulties raised by the identification of theWest with modernity involves a broader analysis within the frameworkof world history and global historical perspectives. In such an analysis, ...


Memory ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 1-2
Author(s):  
Shari R. Berkowitz ◽  
Brandon L. Garrett ◽  
Kimberly M. Fenn ◽  
Elizabeth F. Loftus

2016 ◽  
Vol 30 (6) ◽  
pp. 898-910 ◽  
Author(s):  
Curt A. Carlson ◽  
David F. Young ◽  
Dawn R. Weatherford ◽  
Maria A. Carlson ◽  
Jane E. Bednarz ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document