| Title |
Are multiple-trial experiments appropriate for eyewitness identification studies? Accuracy, choosing, and confidence across trials
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Behavior Research Methods, April 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3758/s13428-017-0855-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
J. K. Mansour, J. L. Beaudry, R. C. L. Lindsay |
| Abstract |
Eyewitness identification experiments typically involve a single trial: A participant views an event and subsequently makes a lineup decision. As compared to this single-trial paradigm, multiple-trial designs are more efficient, but significantly reduce ecological validity and may affect the strategies that participants use to make lineup decisions. We examined the effects of a number of forensically relevant variables (i.e., memory strength, type of disguise, degree of disguise, and lineup type) on eyewitness accuracy, choosing, and confidence across 12 target-present and 12 target-absent lineup trials (N = 349; 8,376 lineup decisions). The rates of correct rejections and choosing (across both target-present and target-absent lineups) did not vary across the 24 trials, as reflected by main effects or interactions with trial number. Trial number had a significant but trivial quadratic effect on correct identifications (OR = 0.99) and interacted significantly, but again trivially, with disguise type (OR = 1.00). Trial number did not significantly influence participants' confidence in correct identifications, confidence in correct rejections, or confidence in target-absent selections. Thus, multiple-trial designs appear to have minimal effects on eyewitness accuracy, choosing, and confidence. Researchers should thus consider using multiple-trial designs for conducting eyewitness identification experiments. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 3 | 75% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 27 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 8 | 30% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 15% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Researcher | 2 | 7% |
| Professor | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 11% |
| Unknown | 7 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 19 | 70% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 7 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 February 2022.
All research outputs
#14,918,049
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Behavior Research Methods
#1,326
of 2,526 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#164,301
of 323,266 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Behavior Research Methods
#18
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,526 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 323,266 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.