An evaluation of lineup presentation, weapon presence, and a distinctive feature using ROC analysis

Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition

Volumn 3, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 45-53

  Carlson, Curt A ^a   Carlson, Maria A ^a  

^a TEXAS A AND M UNIVERSITY COMMERCE   (United States)

Author keywords

Distinctive feature; Eyewitness identification; Receiver operating characteristic analysis; Simultaneous and sequential lineups; Weapon effect

Indexed keywords

EID: 84902540185     PISSN: 22113681     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jarmac.2014.03.004     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Andersen S.A., Carlson C.A., Carlson M.A., Gronlund S.D. Individual differences predict eyewitness identification performance. Personality and Individual Differences 2014, 60:36-40. 10.1016/j.paid.2013.12.011.
2. Carlson C.A. How ROC analysis is changing our understanding of eyewitness identification. American Psychology-Law Society Fall Newsletter 2013, 11-13.
3. Carlson C.A. Influence of a perpetrator's distinctive facial feature on eyewitness identification from simultaneous versus sequential lineups. Applied Psychology in Criminal Justice 2011, 7:77-92.
4. Carlson C.A., Carlson M.A. A distinctiveness-driven reversal of the weapon-focus effect. Applied Psychology in Criminal Justice 2012, 8:36-53.
5. Carlson C.A., Gronlund S.D. Searching for the sequential lineup advantage: A distinctiveness explanation. Memory 2011, 19:916-929. 10.1080/09658211.2011.613846.
6. Carlson C.A., Gronlund S.D., Clark S.E. Lineup composition, suspect position and the sequential lineup advantage. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 2008, 14:118-128. 10.1037/1076-898X.14.2.118.
7. Clark S.E. Costs and benefits of eyewitness identification reform: Psychological science and public policy. Perspectives on Psychological Science 2012, 7:238-259. 10.1177/1745691612439584.
8. Cutler B.L., Penrod S.D. Improving the reliability of eyewitness identification: Lineup construction and presentation. Journal of Applied Psychology 1988, 73:281-290. 10.1037/0021-9010.73.2.281.
9. Dobolyi D.G., Dodson C.S. Eyewitness confidence in simultaneous and sequential lineups: A criterion shift account for sequential mistaken identification overconfidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 2013, (Advance online publication). 10.1037/a0034596.
10. Erickson B.E., Lampinen J.M., Leding J.K. The weapon focus effect in target-present and target-absent lineups: The roles of threat, novelty, and timing. Applied Cognitive Psychology 2014, (Online first publication). 10.1002/acp.3005.
11. Fawcett J.M., Russell E.J., Peace K.A., Christie J. Of guns and geese: A meta- analytic review of the 'weapon focus' literature. Psychology, Crime & Law 2013, 19:35-66. 10.1080/1068316X.2011.599325.
12. Garrett B.L. Convicting the innocent: Where criminal prosecutions go wrong 2011, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
13. Gronlund S.D., Andersen S.M., Perry C. Presentation methods. Reform of eyewitness identification procedures 2012, APA, Washington, DC. B. Cutler (Ed.).
14. Gronlund S.D., Carlson C.A. System-based research on eyewitness identification. The SAGE handbook of applied memory 2013, SAGE Publications, London, UK. T.J. Perfect, D.S. Lindsay (Eds.).
15. Gronlund S.D., Carlson C.A., Dailey S.B., Goodsell C.A. Robustness of the sequential lineup advantage. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 2009, 15:140-152. 10.1037/a0015082.
16. Gronlund S.D., Carlson C.A., Neuschatz J.S., Goodsell C.A., Wetmore S., Wooten A., et al. Showups versus lineups: An evaluation using ROC analysis. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition 2012, 1:221-228. 10.1016/j.jarmac.2012.09.003.
17. Gronlund S., Wixted J., Mickes L. Evaluating eyewitness identification procedures using ROC analysis. Current Directions in Psychological Science 2014, 23:3-10.
18. Horry R., Halford P., Brewer N., Milne R., Bull R. Archival analyses of eyewitness identification test outcomes: What can they tell us about eyewitness memory?. Law and Human Behavior 2013, (Online first publication). 10.1037/lhb0000060.
19. Jonsson P. The police lineup is becoming suspect practice. Christian Science Monitor 2007, February 6, Retrieved from http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0206/pp01s02-usju.htm.
20. Lindsay R.C.L., Wells G.L. Improving eyewitness identifications from lineups: Simultaneous versus sequential lineups presentations. Journal of Applied Psychology 1985, 70:556-564. 10.1037/0021-9010.70.3.556.
21. Loftus E.F., Loftus G.R., Messo J. Some facts about 'weapon focus'. Law and Human Behavior 1987, 11:55-62. 10.1007/BF01044839.
22. Lusted L.B. Signal detectability and medical decision-making. Science 1971, 171:1217-1219.
23. Mickes L., Flowe H.D., Wixted J.T. Receiver operating characteristic analysis in the assessment of lineup-based eyewitness memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 2012, 18:361-376. 10.1037/a0030609.
24. Palmer M.A., Brewer N. Sequential presentation encourages less biased criterion setting but does not improve discriminability. Law and Human Behavior 2012, 36:247-255. 10.1037/h0093923.
25. Pickel K.L. Unusualness and threat as possible causes of 'weapon focus'. Memory 1998, 6:277-295. 10.1080/741942361.
26. Robin X., Turck N., Hainard A., Tiberti N., Lisacek F., Sanchez J.C., et al. pROC: An open-source package for R and S+ to analyze and compare ROC curves. BMC Bioinformatics 2011, 12:77. 10.1186/1471-2105-12-77.
27. Saunders J. Memory impairment in the weapon focus effect. Memory & Cognition 2009, 37:326-335. 10.3758/MC.37.3.32.
28. Steblay N.M. A meta-analytic review of the weapon focus effect. Law and Human Behavior 1992, 16:413-424.
29. Steblay N.M., Dysart J., Fulero S., Lindsay R.C.L. Eyewitness accuracy rates in sequential and simultaneous lineup presentations: A meta-analytic comparison. Law and Human Behavior 2001, 25:459-474.
30. Steblay N.M., Dysart J.E., Wells G.L. Seventy-two tests of the sequential lineup superiority effect: A meta-analysis and policy discussion. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 2011, 17:99-139. 10.1037/a0021650.
31. Swets J.A., Dawes R.M., Monahan J. Psychological science can improve diagnostic decisions. Psychological Science in the Public Interest 2000, 1:1-26. 10.1111/1529-1006.001.
32. Tredoux C.G. Statistical inference on measures of lineup fairness. Law and Human Behavior 1998, 22:217-237.
33. Valentine T., Pickering A., Darling S. Characteristics of eyewitness identification that predict the outcome of real lineups. Applied Cognitive Psychology 2003, 17:969-993. 10.1002/acp.939.
34. Wells G.L. Applied eyewitness testimony research: System variables and estimator variables. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1978, 36:1546-1557. 10.1037/0022-3514.36.12.1546.
35. Wells G.L., Memon A., Penrod S.D. Eyewitness evidence: Improving its probative value. Psychological Science in the Public Interest 2006, 7:45-75. 10.1111/j.1529-1006.2006.00027.x.
36. Wixted J.T., Mickes L. The field of eyewitness memory should abandon "probative value" and embrace Receiver Operating Characteristic analysis. Perspectives on Psychological Science 2012, 7:275-278. 10.1177/1745691612442906.
37. Wixted J.T., Mickes L. A signal-detection-based diagnostic-feature model of eyewitness identification. Psychological Review 2014, (in press).
38. Yonelinas A.P., Parks C.M. Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROCs) in recognition memory: A review. Psychological Bulletin 2007, 133:800-832. 10.1037/0033-2909.133.5.800.
39. Zarkadi T., Wade K.A., Stewart N. Creating fair lineups for suspects with distinctive features. Psychological Science 2009, 20:1448-1453. 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02463.x.