» Articles » PMID: 36114219

Experimental Validation of a Multinomial Processing Tree Model for Analyzing Eyewitness Identification Decisions

Overview
Journal Sci Rep
Specialty Science
Date 2022 Sep 16
PMID 36114219
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

To improve police protocols for lineup procedures, it is helpful to understand the processes underlying eyewitness identification performance. The two-high threshold (2-HT) eyewitness identification model is a multinomial processing tree model that measures four latent cognitive processes on which eyewitness identification decisions are based: two detection-based processes (the detection of culprit presence and absence) and two non-detection-based processes (biased and guessing-based selection). The model takes into account the full 2 × 3 data structure of lineup procedures, that is, suspect identifications, filler identifications and rejections in both culprit-present and culprit-absent lineups. Here the model is introduced and the results of four large validation experiments are reported, one for each of the processes specified by the model. The validation experiments served to test whether the model's parameters sensitively reflect manipulations of the processes they were designed to measure. The results show that manipulations of exposure duration of the culprit's face at encoding, lineup fairness, pre-lineup instructions and ease of rejection of culprit-absent lineups were sensitively reflected in the parameters representing culprit-presence detection, biased suspect selection, guessing-based selection and culprit-absence detection, respectively. The results of the experiments thus validate the interpretations of the parameters of the 2-HT eyewitness identification model.

Citing Articles

Lineup position affects guessing-based selection but not culprit-presence detection in simultaneous and sequential lineups.

Mayer C, Bell R, Menne N, Buchner A Sci Rep. 2024; 14(1):27642.

PMID: 39532964 PMC: 11557592. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-78936-9.


On the possible advantages of combining small lineups with instructions that discourage guessing-based selection.

Therre A, Bell R, Menne N, Mayer C, Lichtenhagen U, Buchner A Sci Rep. 2024; 14(1):14126.

PMID: 38898071 PMC: 11187131. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-64768-0.


On the advantages of using AI-generated images of filler faces for creating fair lineups.

Bell R, Menne N, Mayer C, Buchner A Sci Rep. 2024; 14(1):12304.

PMID: 38811714 PMC: 11137153. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-63004-z.


The effects of lineup size on the processes underlying eyewitness decisions.

Menne N, Winter K, Bell R, Buchner A Sci Rep. 2023; 13(1):17190.

PMID: 37821465 PMC: 10567786. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-44003-y.


Evaluating the impact of first-yes-counts instructions on eyewitness performance using the two-high threshold eyewitness identification model.

Winter K, Menne N, Bell R, Buchner A Sci Rep. 2023; 13(1):6572.

PMID: 37085508 PMC: 10121582. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-33424-4.


References
1.
Clark S . A re-examination of the effects of biased lineup instructions in eyewitness identification. Law Hum Behav. 2005; 29(5):575-604. DOI: 10.1007/s10979-005-7121-1. View

2.
Murnane K, Shiffrin R . Interference and the representation of events in memory. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1991; 17(5):855-74. DOI: 10.1037//0278-7393.17.5.855. View

3.
Stahl C, Degner J . Assessing automatic activation of valence: a multinomial model of EAST performance. Exp Psychol. 2007; 54(2):99-112. DOI: 10.1027/1618-3169.54.2.99. View

4.
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

5.
Ratcliff R, Sheu C, Gronlund S . Testing global memory models using ROC curves. Psychol Rev. 1992; 99(3):518-35. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295x.99.3.518. View