Current guidelines for selecting lineup fillers are imprecise. Consequently, filler characteristics likely vary widely across lineups, potentially affecting identification decisions in important but unexplained ways. We report 2 experiments investigating the impact of 1 source of variation, the number of relatively high versus low similarity match-description fillers, on identification outcomes. Identifications following a retention interval of a few minutes (Experiments 1 and 2) and several weeks (Experiment 2) were examined. Increasing the number of high similarity lineup members within match-description lineups increased choosing (characterized by more filler but fewer suspect identifications), decreased accuracy and confidence and caused a poorer confidence-accuracy relationship. The changes to identification outcomes as the number of high similarity fillers increased were attributable to decreased discriminability and a relaxed criterion, with positive identifications requiring a lesser evidential discrepancy between target and fillers. There was limited evidence of guilty and innocent suspect identifications being differently affected by variations in the number of high similarity fillers and no evidence of suspect discriminability being influenced. For decisions after a short retention interval, high confidence suspect identifications were good predictors of accuracy; however, high similarity match-description fillers undermined the predictive value of high confidence suspect identifications at the long retention interval. Our results suggest that future research must explore methods for curbing variation in identification patterns resulting from uncontrolled filler characteristics. Until then it is critical that identification evidence be interpreted acknowledging that, even in lineups constructed following best practice guidelines, filler characteristics could have profoundly influenced the outcome.
Emotion recognition difficulties are considered to contribute to social‐communicative problems for autistic individuals. Prior research has been dominated by a focus on forced‐choice recognition response accuracy for static face presentations of basic emotions, often involving small samples. Using free‐report and multiple‐choice response formats, we compared emotion recognition in IQ‐matched autistic (N = 63) and nonautistic (N = 67) adult samples using 12 face emotion stimuli presented in three different stimulus formats (static, dynamic, social) that varied the degree of accompanying contextual information. Percent agreement with normative recognition responses (usually labeled “recognition accuracy”) was slightly lower for autistic adults. Both groups displayed marked inter‐individual variability and, although there was considerable overlap between groups, a very small subset of autistic individuals recorded lower percent agreement than any of the nonautistic sample. Overall, autistic individuals were significantly slower to respond and less confident. Although stimulus type, response format, and emotion affected percent agreement, latency and confidence, their interactions with group were nonsignificant and the associated effect sizes extremely small. The findings challenge notions that autistic adults have core deficits in emotion recognition and are more likely than nonautistic adults to be overwhelmed by increasingly dynamic or complex emotion stimuli and to experience difficulties recognizing specific emotions. Suggested research priorities include clarifying whether longer recognition latencies reflect fundamental processing limitations or adjustable strategic influences, probing age‐related changes in emotion recognition across adulthood, and identifying the links between difficulties highlighted by traditional emotion recognition paradigms and real‐world social functioning. Lay Summary It is generally considered that autistic individuals are less accurate than nonautistic individuals at recognizing other people's facial emotions. Using a wide array of emotions presented in various contexts, this study suggests that autistic individuals are, on average, only slightly less accurate but at the same time somewhat slower when classifying others' emotions. However, there was considerable overlap between the two groups, and great variability between individuals. The differences between groups prevailed regardless of how stimuli were presented, the response required or the particular emotion.
Emotion recognition difficulties are considered to contribute to social-communicative problems for autistic individuals and awareness of such difficulties may be critical for the identification and pursuit of strategies that will mitigate their adverse effects. We examined metacognitive awareness of face emotion recognition responses in autistic (N = 63) and non-autistic (N = 67) adults across (a) static, dynamic and social face emotion stimuli, (b) free-and forced-report response formats, and (c) four different sets of the six "basic" and six "complex" emotions. Within-individual relationships between recognition accuracy and post-recognition confidence provided no indication that autistic individuals were poorer at discriminating correct from incorrect recognition responses than non-autistic individuals, although both groups exhibited marked inter-individual variability. Although the autistic group was less accurate and slower to recognize emotions, confidence-accuracy calibration analyses provided no evidence of reduced sensitivity on their part to fluctuations in their emotion recognition performance. Across variations in stimulus type, response format and emotion, increases in accuracy were associated with progressively higher confidence, with similar calibration curves for both groups. Calibration curves for both groups were, however, characterized by overconfidence at the higher confidence levels (i.e., overall accuracy less than the average confidence level), with the non-autistic group contributing more decisions with 90%-100% confidence. Comparisons of slow and fast responders provided no evidence of a "hardeasy" effect-the tendency to exhibit overconfidence during hard tasks and underconfidence during easy tasks-suggesting that autistic individuals' slower recognition responding may reflect a strategic difference rather than a processing speed limitation. Lay SummaryIt is generally considered that autistic individuals may have difficulty recognizing other people's facial emotions. However, little is known about their awareness of any emotion recognition difficulties they may experience. This study indicates that, although there is considerable individual variability, autistic adults were as sensitive to variations in the accuracy of their recognition of others' emotions as their non-autistic peers.
Early identification of autism, followed by appropriate intervention, has the potential to improve outcomes for autistic individuals. Numerous screening instruments have been developed for children under 3 years of age. Level 1 screeners are used in large-scale screening to detect at-risk children in the general population; Level 2 screeners are concerned with distinguishing children with signs of autism from those with other developmental problems. The focus here is evaluation of Level 2 screeners. However, given the contributions of Level 1 screeners and the necessity to understand how they might interface with Level 2 screeners, we briefly review Level 1 screeners and consider instrument characteristics and system variables that may constrain their effectiveness. The examination of Level 2 screeners focuses on five instruments associated with published evaluations in peer-reviewed journals. Key criteria encompass the traditional indices of test integrity such as test reliability (inter-rater, test-retest) and construct validity, including concurrent and predictive validity, sensitivity (SE), and specificity (SP). These evaluations reveal limitations, including inadequate sample sizes, reliability issues, and limited involvement of independent researchers. Also lacking are comparative test evaluations under standardized conditions, hindering interpretation of differences in discriminative performance across instruments. Practical considerations constraining the use of such instruments—such as the requirements for training in test administration and test administration time—are canvassed. Published Level 2 screener short forms are reviewed and, as a consequence of that evaluation, future directions for assessing the discriminative capacity of items and measures are suggested. Suggested priorities for future research include targeting large and diverse samples to permit robust appraisals of Level 2 items and scales across the 12–36 month age range, a greater focus on precise operationalization of items and response coding to enhance reliability, ongoing exploration of potentially discriminating items at the younger end of the targeted age range, and trying to unravel the complexities of developmental trajectories in autistic infants. Finally, we emphasize the importance of understanding how screening efficacy is dependent on clinicians' and researchers' ability not only to develop screening tests but also to negotiate the complex organizational systems within which screening procedures must be implemented.
Objective: Three studies examined the influence of a witness's identification speed on the identification decision of another witness. Hypotheses: Based on research documenting cowitness effects we expected cowitness speed to affect identification decisions from target-absent photospreads. Without prior research testing the effects of cowitness speed, we did not have a specific prediction regarding how fast (vs. slow) cowitness identification decisions would affect participant-witnesses' identification rates in Study 1. Based on the results from Study 1, in Study 2 we predicted that fast (vs. slow) cowitness decisions would increase choices from target-absent photospreads when the cowitness was known to have made a positive identification. In Study 3, cowitnesses rejected the photospread. Based on the previous studies, we hypothesized that fast (vs. slow) cowitness decisions would decrease choices from target-absent photospreads. However, because a photospread rejection is qualitatively different from an identification, this prediction was tentative. Method: In all three studies, participants watched one of 2 stimulus videos with a confederate cowitness. After the video, the confederate made a fast (10 s) or slow (4 min) identification. Participants then attempted an identification from a target-absent photospread. In Study 1 (N ϭ 101), the confederate's decision from the photospread was ambiguous. In Study 2 (N ϭ 200) the confederate announced making a positive identification. In Study 3 (N ϭ 151) the confederate cowitness rejected the photospread. Results: In all 3 studies, participants paired with a fast cowitness made more choices from the target-absent photospread than did participants paired with a slow cowitness. Conclusions: Fast cowitness identifications increased choices from the target-absent photospread regardless of whether a cowitness's decision was ambiguous (Study 1), whether they made an identification (Study 2), or rejected the photospread (Study 3). Given the effects of cowitness speed on identification decisions, it might be advisable to standardize the duration of identification procedures and inform witnesses of this standardization. Public Significance StatementEyewitnesses to crimes often witness events with other people present. Subsequent identification procedures that are conducted in the presence of these cowitnesses could communicate information about the speed of a fellow witness's identification. The current studies demonstrate that cowitness speed affects other witnesses' identification decisions.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.