» Articles » PMID: 33660118

Testing Encoding Specificity and the Diagnostic Feature-detection Theory of Eyewitness Identification, with Implications for Showups, Lineups, and Partially Disguised Perpetrators

Overview
Specialty Psychology
Date 2021 Mar 4
PMID 33660118
Citations 5
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The diagnostic feature-detection theory (DFT) of eyewitness identification is based on facial information that is diagnostic versus non-diagnostic of suspect guilt. It primarily has been tested by discounting non-diagnostic information at retrieval, typically by surrounding a single suspect showup with good fillers to create a lineup. We tested additional DFT predictions by manipulating the presence of facial information (i.e., the exterior region of the face) at both encoding and retrieval with a large between-subjects factorial design (N = 19,414). In support of DFT and in replication of the literature, lineups yielded higher discriminability than showups. In support of encoding specificity, conditions that matched information between encoding and retrieval were generally superior to mismatch conditions. More importantly, we supported several DFT and encoding specificity predictions not previously tested, including that (a) adding non-diagnostic information will reduce discriminability for showups more so than lineups, and (b) removing diagnostic information will lower discriminability for both showups and lineups. These results have implications for police deciding whether to conduct a showup or a lineup, and when dealing with partially disguised perpetrators (e.g., wearing a hoodie).

Citing Articles

The effect of surgical masks on identification decisions from masked and unmasked lineups.

Palu A, Raidvee A, Murnikov V, Kask K Psychiatr Psychol Law. 2024; 31(5):932-962.

PMID: 39318879 PMC: 11418056. DOI: 10.1080/13218719.2023.2242435.


Face masks are less effective than sunglasses in masking face identity.

Or C, Ng K, Chia Y, Koh J, Lim D, Lee A Sci Rep. 2023; 13(1):4284.

PMID: 36922579 PMC: 10015138. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-31321-4.


Toward a more comprehensive modeling of sequential lineups.

Kellen D, McAdoo R Cogn Res Princ Implic. 2022; 7(1):65.

PMID: 35867241 PMC: 9307710. DOI: 10.1186/s41235-022-00397-3.


Improving face identification of mask-wearing individuals.

Manley K, Chan J, Wells G Cogn Res Princ Implic. 2022; 7(1):27.

PMID: 35347475 PMC: 8960223. DOI: 10.1186/s41235-022-00369-7.


Perpetrator pose reinstatement during a lineup test increases discrimination accuracy.

Colloff M, Seale-Carlisle T, Karoglu N, Rockey J, Smith H, Smith L Sci Rep. 2021; 11(1):13830.

PMID: 34244529 PMC: 8271008. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-92509-0.

References
1.
Mickes L, Flowe H, Wixted J . Receiver operating characteristic analysis of eyewitness memory: comparing the diagnostic accuracy of simultaneous versus sequential lineups. J Exp Psychol Appl. 2013; 18(4):361-76. DOI: 10.1037/a0030609. View

2.
Kent C, Lamberts K, Patton R . Cue quality and criterion setting in recognition memory. Mem Cognit. 2018; 46(5):757-769. DOI: 10.3758/s13421-018-0796-6. View

3.
Colloff M, Wixted J . Why are lineups better than showups? A test of the filler siphoning and enhanced discriminability accounts. J Exp Psychol Appl. 2019; 26(1):124-143. DOI: 10.1037/xap0000218. View

4.
Wixted J, Wells G . The Relationship Between Eyewitness Confidence and Identification Accuracy: A New Synthesis. Psychol Sci Public Interest. 2017; 18(1):10-65. DOI: 10.1177/1529100616686966. View

5.
Smith A, Yang Y, Wells G . Distinguishing Between Investigator Discriminability and Eyewitness Discriminability: A Method for Creating Full Receiver Operating Characteristic Curves of Lineup Identification Performance. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2020; 15(3):589-607. DOI: 10.1177/1745691620902426. View