↓ Skip to main content

Individual differences in eyewitness accuracy across multiple lineups of faces

Overview of attention for article published in Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Individual differences in eyewitness accuracy across multiple lineups of faces
Published in
Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, August 2018
DOI 10.1186/s41235-018-0121-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrew J. Russ, Melanie Sauerland, Charlotte E. Lee, Markus Bindemann

Abstract

Theories of face recognition in cognitive psychology stipulate that the hallmark of accurate identification is the ability to recognize a person consistently, across different encounters. In this study, we apply this reasoning to eyewitness identification by assessing the recognition of the same target person repeatedly, over six successive lineups. Such repeat identifications are challenging and can be performed only by a proportion of individuals, both when a target exhibits limited and more substantial variability in appearance across lineups (Experiments 1 and 2). The ability to do so correlates with individual differences in identification accuracy on two established tests of unfamiliar face recognition (Experiment 3). This indicates that most observers have limited facial representations of target persons in eyewitness scenarios, which do not allow for robust identification in most individuals, partly due to limitations in their ability to recognize unfamiliar faces. In turn, these findings suggest that consistency of responses across multiple lineups of faces could be applied to assess which individuals are accurate eyewitnesses.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 26%
Student > Bachelor 3 16%
Student > Master 3 16%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 11%
Researcher 2 11%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 3 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 13 68%
Computer Science 2 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 5%
Unknown 2 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 14 December 2018.
All research outputs
#4,575,633
of 15,183,934 outputs
Outputs from Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications
#87
of 151 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#103,833
of 276,964 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,183,934 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 151 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 41.3. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 276,964 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them