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

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied

Volumn 19, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 345-357

  Dobolyi, David G ^a   Dodson, Chad S ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Eyewitness confidence; Eyewitness identification; Mistaken identification; Receiver operating characteristic (ROC); Sequential lineups; Simultaneous lineups

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; CRIMINAL LAW; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; PERCEPTIVE DISCRIMINATION; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; RECOGNITION; YOUNG ADULT;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; CRIMINAL LAW; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; RECOGNITION (PSYCHOLOGY); ROC CURVE; SIGNAL DETECTION, PSYCHOLOGICAL; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84890569807     PISSN: 1076898X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/a0034596     Document Type: Article

References (67)

1. Baranski, J. V., & Petrusic, W. M. (1994). The calibration and resolution of confidence in perceptual judgments. Perception & Psychophysics, 55, 412-428.
2. Bothwell, R. K., Deffenbacher, K. A., & Brigham, J. C. (1987). Correlation of eyewitness accuracy and confidence: Optimality hypothesis revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 691-695.
3. Brewer, N., & Wells, G. L. (2006). The confidence-accuracy relationship in eyewitness identification: Effects of lineup instructions, foil similarity, and target-absent base rates. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 12, 11-30.
4. Brown, J., Lewis, V. J., & Monk, A. F. (1977). Memorability, word frequency and negative recognition. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 29, 461-473.
5. Carlson, C. A., Gronlund, S. D., & Clark, S. E. (2008). Lineup composition, suspect position, and the sequential lineup advantage. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 14, 118-128.
6. Clark, S. E. (2012a). Costs and benefits of eyewitness identification reform psychological science and public policy. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 238-259.
7. Clark, S. E. (2012b). Eyewitness identification reform data, theory, and due process. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 279 -283.
8. Clark, S. E., Erickson, M. A., & Breneman, J. (2011). Probative value of absolute and relative judgments in eyewitness identification. Law and Human Behavior, 35, 364-380.
9. Clark, S. E., & Davey, S. L. (2005). The target-to-foils shift in simultaneous and sequential lineups. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 151-172.
10. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
11. DeCarlo, L. T. (2007). The mirror effect and mixture signal detection theory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 18-33.
12. Doob, A. N., & Kirshenbaum, H. M. (1973). Bias in police lineups- Partial remembering. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 1, 287-293.
13. Ebbesen, E. B., & Flowe, H. D. (2002). Simultaneous v. sequential lineups: What do we really know? Unpublished manuscript. Retrieved from http://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/psychology/ppl/hf49/ SimSeq%20Submit.pdf
14. Fawcett, T. (2006). An introduction to ROC analysis. Pattern Recognition Letters, 27, 861-874.
15. Ferguson, C. J. (2009). An effect size primer: A guide for clinicians and researchers. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 40, 532.
16. Garrett, B. (2011). Convicting the innocent: Where criminal prosecutions go wrong. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
17. Glanzer, M., & Adams, J. K. (1990). The mirror effect in recognition memory: Data and theory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 5-16.
18. Gonzalez, R., Davis, J., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1995). Who should stand next to the suspect? Problems in the assessment of lineup fairness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 525-531.
19. Goodman, L. A., & Kruskal, W. H. (1954). Measures of association for cross classifications_. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 49, 732-764
20. Gronlund, S. D. (2004). Sequential lineups: Shift in criterion or decision strategy?. Journal of Applied Psychology; Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 362.
21. Gronlund, S. D., Carlson, C. A., Dailey, S. B., & Goodsell, C. A. (2009). Robustness of the sequential lineup advantage. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 15, 140-152.
22. Gronlund, S. D., Carlson, C. A., Neuschatz, J. S., Goodsell, C. A., Wetmore, S., Wooten, A., & Graham, M. (2012). Showups versus lineups: An evaluation using ROC analysis. Journal of Applied Research in Memory & Cognition, 1, 221-228.
23. Gross, S. R., Jacoby, K., Matheson, D. J., Montgomery, N., & Patil, S. (2005). Exonerations in the United States 1989 through 2003. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 95, 523-560.
24. Horry, R., Palmer, M. A., & Brewer, N. (2012). Backloading in the sequential lineup prevents within-lineup criterion shifts that undermine eyewitness identification performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 18, 346-360.
25. Juslin, P., Olsson, N., & Winman, A. (1996). Calibration and diagnosticity of confidence in eyewitness identification: Comments on what can be inferred from the low confidence-accuracy correlation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22(5), 1304-1316.
26. Keast, A., Brewer, N., & Wells, G. L. (2007). Children's metacognitive judgments in an eyewitness identification task. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 97, 286-314.
27. Koriat, A., & Goldsmith, M. (1996). Monitoring and control processes in the strategic regulation of memory accuracy. Psychological Review, 103, 490-517.
28. Krug, K. (2007). The relationship between confidence and accuracy: Current thoughts of the literature and a new area of research. Applied Psychology in Criminal Justice, 3, 7-41.
29. Leippe, M. R., Eisenstadt, D., & Rauch, S. M. (2009). Cueing confidence in eyewitness identifications: Influence of biased lineup instructions and pre-identification memory feedback under varying lineup conditions. Law and Human Behavior, 33, 194-212.
30. Lindsay, D. S., Read, J. D., & Sharma, K. (1998). Accuracy and confidence in person identification: The relationship is strong when witnessing conditions vary widely. Psychological Science, 9, 215-218.
31. Lindsay, R. C. L., Mansour, J. K., Beaudry, J. L., Leach, A. M., & Bertrand, M. I. (2009). Sequential lineup presentation: Patterns and policy. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 14, 13-24.
32. Lindsay, R. C., & Wells, G. L. (1985). Improving eyewitness identifications from lineups: Simultaneous versus sequential lineup presentation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 556-564.
33. Macmillan, N. A. (1993). Signal detection theory as data analysis method and psychological decision model. In G. Keren & C. Lewis (Eds.), A handbook for data analysis in the behavioral sciences: Methodological issues (pp. 21-57). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
34. Macmillan, N. A., & Creelman, C. D. (2005). Detection Theory: A user's guide. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
35. Malpass, R. S., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (1999). Measuring lineup fairness. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13, S1-S7.
36. Malpass, R. S., Tredoux, C. G., & McQuiston-Surrett, D. (2009). Public policy and sequential lineups. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 14, 1-12.
37. Malpass, R. S., Tredoux, C. G., & McQuiston-Surrett, D. (2007). Lineup construction and lineup fairness. In R. C. L. Lindsay, D. F. Ross, J. D. Read, & M. P. Toglia (Eds.), The handbook of eyewitness psychology, Vol II: Memory for people (pp. 155-178). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Publishers.
38. Mandler, G., & Boeck, W. J. (1974). Retrieval processes in recognition. Memory & Cognition, 2, 613-615.
39. Manson v. Braithwaite. (1977). 432 U.S. 98,97 S. Ct. 2243.
40. Masson, M. E. J., & Rotello, C. M. (2009). Sources of bias in the Goodman-Kruskal gamma coefficient measure of association: Implications for studies of metacognitive processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 509-527.
41. McClish, D. K. (1989). Analyzing a portion of the ROC curve. Medical Decision Making, 9, 190-195.
42. Meissner, C. A., Tredoux, C. G., Parker, J. F., & MacLin, O. H. (2005). Eyewitness decisions in simultaneous and sequential lineups: A dualprocess signal detection theory analysis. Memory & Cognition, 33, 783-792.
43. Memon, A., & Gabbert, F. (2003). Improving the identification accuracy of senior witnesses: Do prelineup questions and sequential testing help? Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 341-347.
44. Mickes, L., Flowe, H. D., & Wixted, J. T. (2012). Receiver operating characteristic analysis in the assessment of lineup-based eyewitness memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 18, 361-376.
45. Neil v. Biggers. (1972). 409 U.S. 188.
46. Palmer, M. A., & Brewer, N. (2012). Sequential lineup presentation promotes less-biased criterion setting but does not improve discriminability. Law and Human Behavior, 36, 247-255.
47. Palmer, M. A., Brewer, N., & Weber, N. (2010). Postidentification feedback affects subsequent eyewitness identification performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 16, 387-398.
48. Pannu, J. K., & Kaszniak, A. W. (2005). Metamemory experiments in neurological populations: A review. Neuropsychology Review, 15, 105- 130.
49. Robin, X., Turck, N., Hainard, A., Tiberti, N., Lisacek, F., Sanchez, J. C., & Müller, M. (2011). pROC: An open-source package for R and S_ to analyze and compare ROC curves. BMC bioinformatics, 12, 77.
50. Sauer, J., Brewer, N., Zweck, T., & Weber, N. (2010). The effect of retention interval on the confidence-accuracy relationship for eyewitness identification. Law and Human Behavior, 34, 337-347.
51. Sauerland, M., Sagana, A., & Sporer, S. L. (2012). Assessing nonchoosers' eyewitness identification accuracy from photographic showups by using confidence and response times. Law and Human Behavior, 36, 394- 403.
52. Semmler, C., Brewer, N., & Douglass, A. B. (2011). Jurors believe eyewitnesses. In B. L. Cutler (Ed.), Conviction of the innocent: Lessons from psychological research (pp. 185-209). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
53. Somers, R. H. (1962). A new asymmetric measure of association for ordinal variables. American Sociological Review, 27, 799-811.
54. Spellman, B. A., Bloomfield, A., & Bjork, R. A. (2008). Measuring memory and metamemory: Theoretical and statistical problems with assessing learning (in general) and using gamma (in particular) to do so. In J. Dunlosky & R. A. Bjork (Eds.), Handbook of memory and metamemory (pp. 95-114). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
55. Sporer, S. L. (1993). Eyewitness identification accuracy, confidence, and decision times in simultaneous and sequential lineups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 22-33.
56. Sporer, S. L., Penrod, S. D., Read, D., & Cutler, B. (1995). Choosing, confidence and accuracy: A meta-analysis of the confidence-accuracy relation in eyewitness identification studies. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 315-327.
57. Stanislaw, H., & Todorov, N. (1999). Calculation of signal detection theory measures. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 31, 137-149.
58. Steblay, N., Dysart, J., Fulero, S., & Lindsay, R. C. (2001). Eyewitness accuracy rates in sequential and simultaneous lineup presentations: A meta-analytic comparison. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 459-473.
59. Steblay, N. K., Dysart, J. E., & Wells, G. L. (2011). Seventy-two tests of the sequential lineup superiority effect: A meta-analysis and policy discussion. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 17, 99-139.
60. Swets, J. A. (1986). Form of empirical ROCs in discrimination and diagnostic tasks. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 181-198.
61. Tredoux, C. (1999). Statistical considerations when determining measures of lineup size and lineup bias. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13, S9- S26.
62. United States v. Telfaire, 469 F. 2d 552 (D. C. Cir. 1972).
63. Verde, M. E., Macmillan, N. A., & Rotello, C. M. (2006). Measures of sensitivity based on a single hit rate and false alarm rate: The accuracy, precision, and robustness of d=, Az, and A=. Perception & Psychophysics, 68, 643-654.
64. Weber, N., & Brewer, N. (2004). Confidence-accuracy calibration in absolute and relative face recognition judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 10, 156-172.
65. Wells, G. L., Small, M., Penrod, S., Malpass, R. S., Fulero, S. M., & Brimacombe, C. (1998). Eyewitness identification procedures: Recommendations for lineups and photospreads. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 603-647.
66. Wells, G. L., Steblay, N. K., & Dysart, J. E. (2012). Eyewitness identification reforms: Are suggestiveness-induced hits and guesses true hits?. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 264 -271.
67. Wixted, J. T., & Mickes, L. (2012). The field of eyewitness memory should abandon probative value and embrace receiver operating characteristic analysis. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 275-278.