Theory, logic and data: Paths to a more coherent eyewitness science

Wells, Gary L.

doi:10.1002/acp.1488

Cited by 8 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 14 publications

(20 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Through the application of the WITNESS model (Clark, 2003), we have developed a set of explanations that advance our understanding of the sequential lineup advantage. We conclude in agreement with Clark (2008) and Wells (2008) that computational modeling is needed to solve important applied problems like the efficacy of the sequential lineup, and that the continued interplay of theory and data will allow us to finally resolve why the sequential lineup advantage occurs.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 84%

“…But McQuiston-Surrett, Malpass, and Tredoux (2006) argued that it would be better if researchers had an explanation for why sequential lineups were better before policy recommendations were made. We echo Clark (2008) and Wells (2008) in their call for the use of formal models to achieve this goal. The use of formal or quantitatively specified models provides several advantages over mere verbal statements about underlying mechanisms (see Bjork, 1973; Hintzman, 1991; Lewandowsky, 1993).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Exploring the sequential lineup advantage using WITNESS.

Goodsell

Gronlund

Carlson

2010

Law and Human Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Advocates claim that the sequential lineup is an improvement over simultaneous lineup procedures, but no formal (quantitatively specified) explanation exists for why it is better. The computational model WITNESS (Clark, Appl Cogn Psychol 17:629-654, 2003) was used to develop theoretical explanations for the sequential lineup advantage. In its current form, WITNESS produced a sequential advantage only by pairing conservative sequential choosing with liberal simultaneous choosing. However, this combination failed to approximate four extant experiments that exhibited large sequential advantages. Two of these experiments became the focus of our efforts because the data were uncontaminated by likely suspect position effects. Decision-based and memory-based modifications to WITNESS approximated the data and produced a sequential advantage. The next step is to evaluate the proposed explanations and modify public policy recommendations accordingly.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 84%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring the sequential lineup advantage using WITNESS.

Goodsell

Gronlund

Carlson

2010

Law and Human Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Likewise, it was only through implementing criterial variability in a formal model that we discovered that fillers may act to mitigate the impact of criterial variability—a new explanation that now warrants empirical testing. Hintzman ( 1991 , p. 41) argued that one of the most important uses of formal models is to “clear up misconceptions and reveal underlying truths that are not obvious at first glance.” Therefore, it is crucial that the empirical exploration of these explanations be embedded within the context of formal models to accelerate the advance of the field (for similar calls see Clark, 2008 ; Clark & Gronlund, 2015 ; Gronlund et al, 2015 ; Wells, 2008 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The impact of fillers on lineup performance

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Filler siphoning theory posits that the presence of fillers (known innocents) in a lineup protects an innocent suspect from being chosen by siphoning choices away from that innocent suspect. This mechanism has been proposed as an explanation for why simultaneous lineups (viewing all lineup members at once) induces better performance than showups (one-person identification procedures). We implemented filler siphoning in a computational model (WITNESS, Clark, Applied Cognitive Psychology 17:629–654, 2003), and explored the impact of the number of fillers (lineup size) and filler quality on simultaneous and sequential lineups (viewing lineups members in sequence), and compared both to showups. In limited situations, we found that filler siphoning can produce a simultaneous lineup performance advantage, but one that is insufficient in magnitude to explain empirical data. However, the magnitude of the empirical simultaneous lineup advantage can be approximated once criterial variability is added to the model. But this modification works by negatively impacting showups rather than promoting more filler siphoning. In sequential lineups, fillers were found to harm performance. Filler siphoning fails to clarify the relationship between simultaneous lineups and sequential lineups or showups. By incorporating constructs like filler siphoning and criterial variability into a computational model, and trying to approximate empirical data, we can sort through explanations of eyewitness decision-making, a prerequisite for policy recommendations.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s41235-017-0084-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

“…One prominent point of contention is whether the difference in identification performance between sequential and simultaneous lineups represents a difference in discriminability (i.e., witnesses' ability to distinguish the culprit from other lineup members) or response bias (i.e., the tendency of witnesses to choose from or reject a lineup), constructs rooted in signal detection theory (SDT; Green & Swets, 1966; Macmillan & Creelman, 1991). Recently, researchers have advocated the use of quantitative models for developing an understanding of the cognitive mechanisms underpinning the sequential lineup advantage (Clark, 2008; Goodsell et al, 2010; Wells, 2008). In this research, we used a compound signal detection model to reanalyze data from 22 experiments that compared sequential and simultaneous lineups in order to investigate whether the differences in identification performance between the two presentation modes could be attributed to differences in discriminability or response bias.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Sequential lineup presentation promotes less-biased criterion setting but does not improve discriminability.

Palmer¹,

Brewer²

2012

Law and Human Behavior

128

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When compared with simultaneous lineup presentation, sequential presentation has been shown to reduce false identifications to a greater extent than it reduces correct identifications. However, there has been much debate about whether this difference in identification performance represents improved discriminability or more conservative responding. In this research, data from 22 experiments that compared sequential and simultaneous lineups were analyzed using a compound signal-detection model, which is specifically designed to describe decision-making performance on tasks such as eyewitness identification tests. Sequential (cf. simultaneous) presentation did not influence discriminability, but produced a conservative shift in response bias that resulted in less-biased choosing for sequential than simultaneous lineups. These results inform understanding of the effects of lineup presentation mode on eyewitness identification decisions.

show abstract

Theory, logic and data: Paths to a more coherent eyewitness science

Cited by 8 publications

References 14 publications

Exploring the sequential lineup advantage using WITNESS.

Exploring the sequential lineup advantage using WITNESS.

The impact of fillers on lineup performance

Sequential lineup presentation promotes less-biased criterion setting but does not improve discriminability.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About