.80.30.20.70. Eyewitness Identification Procedures Simultaneous Lineup Suspect: Innocent or Guilty?...
-
Upload
stephanie-stone -
Category
Documents
-
view
215 -
download
0
Transcript of .80.30.20.70. Eyewitness Identification Procedures Simultaneous Lineup Suspect: Innocent or Guilty?...
LIST
honey candy dinner present sword belief shore kitchen cradle snake
TARGETS
honey candy dinner present sword belief shore kitchen cradle snake
Hit Rate= .80
FOILS
drama folly thorn message drink ground doctor woods journal sister
FA Rate= .30
Hit(Correct ID)
TrueState
Present
Absent
Present Absent
DiagnosticDecision
Miss
CorrectRejection
False Alarm(False ID)
.80
.30
.20
.70
Eyewitness Identification Procedures
Simultaneous Lineup
Suspect:Innocent or
Guilty?
Fillers:All are known to be
innocent
Eyewitness Identification Procedures
Sequential LineupSimultaneous Lineup
Suspect:Innocent or
Guilty?
Simultaneous LineupSimultaneous Lineup
TARGET-PRESENT LINEUP(N=100)
TARGET-ABSENT LINEUP(N=100)
Mock-Crime Laboratory StudiesEach participant (n = 200) first watches a simulated crime
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 S S S S S S S S S S
2 S S S S S S S S S S
3 S S S S S S S S S S
4 S S S S S S S S S S
5 S S S S S S S S S S
6 S S S S S S S S F F
7 F F F F F F F F F F
8 N N N N N N N N N N
9 N N N N N N N N N N
10 N N N N N N N N N N
Suspect ID Rate: 0.58
Filler ID Rate: 0.12
No ID rate: 0.30
Target-Present Lineup
(Guilty)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 S S S S S S S S S S
2 S S S S S S S S S S
3 S S S S S S S S S S
4 S S S S S S S S S S
5 S S S F F F F F F F
6 F F F F F F F F N N
7 N N N N N N N N N N
8 N N N N N N N N N N
9 N N N N N N N N N N
10 N N N N N N N N N N
Suspect ID Rate: 0.43
Filler ID Rate: 0.15
No ID rate: 0.42
Target-Absent Lineup
(Innocent)
Lindsay & Wells (1985)
Lindsay & Wells (1985)
Lindsay & Wells (1985)
Simultaneous lineup Correct Suspect ID rate = 0.58 False Suspect ID rate = 0.43
Sequential lineup Correct Suspect ID rate = 0.50 False Suspect ID rate = 0.17
.58—— .43
Diagnosticity Ratio
= 2.94
= 1.35
.50—— .17
Lindsay & Wells (1985)
Simultaneous lineup Correct Suspect ID rate = 0.58 False Suspect ID rate = 0.43
Sequential lineup Correct Suspect ID rate = 0.50 False Suspect ID rate = 0.17
SimultaneousSequential
False ID Rate
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Cor
rect
ID
Rat
e
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Lindsay & Wells (1985)
Simultaneous lineup Correct Suspect ID rate = 0.58 False Suspect ID rate = 0.43
Sequential lineup Correct Suspect ID rate = 0.50 False Suspect ID rate = 0.17
SimultaneousSequential
False ID Rate
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Cor
rect
ID
Rat
e
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.352.94
Target-Present Lineup
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3
2 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 Suspect ID Rate: 0.58 (Guilty)
4 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7
5 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Filler ID Rate: 0.12
6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 F F
7 F F F F F F F F F F No ID rate: 0.30
8 N N N N N N N N N N
9 N N N N N N N N N N
10 N N N N N N N N N N
Target-Present Lineup
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 N N 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3
2 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 Suspect ID Rate: 0.56 (Guilty)
4 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7
5 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Filler ID Rate: 0.12
6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 F F
7 F F F F F F F F F F No ID rate: 0.32
8 N N N N N N N N N N
9 N N N N N N N N N N
10 N N N N N N N N N N
Target-Absent Lineup
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3
3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 Suspect ID Rate: 0.43 (Innocent)
4 4 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6
5 7 7 7 F F F F F F F Filler ID Rate: 0.15
6 F F F F F F F F N N
7 N N N N N N N N N N No ID rate: 0.42
8 N N N N N N N N N N
9 N N N N N N N N N N
10 N N N N N N N N N N
Target-Absent Lineup
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 N N N N N N N N N N
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3
3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 Suspect ID Rate: 0.33 (Innocent)
4 4 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6
5 7 7 7 F F F F F F F Filler ID Rate: 0.15
6 F F F F F F F F N N
7 N N N N N N N N N N No ID rate: 0.52
8 N N N N N N N N N N
9 N N N N N N N N N N
10 N N N N N N N N N N
False ID Rate
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5C
orre
ct I
D R
ate
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Varying Response Bias from liberal to conservative
SimultaneousSequential
≥ 1≥ 2
False ID Rate
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5C
orre
ct I
D R
ate
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Varying Response Bias from liberal to conservative
SimultaneousSequential
≥ 1≥ 2≥ 3≥ 4
≥ 5
≥ 6
≥ 7
False ID Rate
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5C
orre
ct I
D R
ate
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Varying Response Bias from liberal to conservative
SimultaneousSequential
3.90
5.14
7.2
2.941.351.812.28
False ID Rate
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5C
orre
ct I
D R
ate
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Varying Response Bias from liberal to conservative
SimultaneousSequential
False ID Rate
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5C
orre
ct I
D R
ate
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
The Concept of Discriminability
SimultaneousSequential
False ID Rate
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5C
orre
ct I
D R
ate
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
The Concept of Discriminability
SimultaneousSequential
Lindsay & Wells (1985)
Simultaneous lineup Correct Suspect ID rate = 0.58 False Suspect ID rate = 0.43
Sequential lineup Correct Suspect ID rate = 0.50 False Suspect ID rate = 0.17
SimultaneousSequential
False ID Rate
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Cor
rect
ID
Rat
e
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Results from ROC Analysis (#1)Simultaneous vs. Sequential
False ID Rate
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08
Co
rre
ct I
D R
ate
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Simultaneous
Sequential
Mickes, L., Flowe, H. D., & Wixted, J. T. (2012). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 18, 361–376.
Results from ROC Analysis (#2)
Gronlund et al. (2012). Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 1, 221–228.
Simultaneous vs. Sequential
SIMSEQ
Results from ROC Analysis (#3)
Dobolyi, D. G., & Dodson, C. S. (2013). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 19, 345-357.
Simultaneous vs. Sequential
SIM x 4SEQ x 4
SIM x 2SEQ x 2
Results from ROC Analysis (#4)
Carlson, C. A. & Carlson, M. A. (2014). Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition.
False ID Rate
Corr
ect I
D R
ate
SimultaneousSequential
Results from ROC Analysis (#5)
Andersen, S. M., Carlson, C. A., Carlson, M. A. & Gronlund (2014). Personality and Individual Differences, 60, 36-40.
False ID Rate
Corr
ect I
D R
ate
SimultaneousSequential
“Despite its merits, a single diagnosticity ratio thus conflates the influences of discriminability and response bias on binary classification, which muddies the determination of which procedure, if any, yields objectively better discriminability in eyewitness performance.”
“Perhaps the greatest practical benefit of recent debate over the utility of different lineup procedures is that it has opened the door to a broader consideration of methods for evaluating and enhancing eyewitness identification performance. ROC analysis is a positive and promising step, with numerous advantages.”
“The committee concludes that there should be no debate about the value of greater discriminability – to promote a lineup procedure that brings less discriminability would be akin to advocating that the lineup be performed in dim instead of bright light.”
Diagnosticity Ratio or ROC Analysis?
What About Recent ROC Analyses?
• “…a small set of recent studies using ROC analysis has reported that discriminability (area under the ROC curve) for simultaneous lineups is as high, or higher, than that for sequential lineups.”
• “Amendola and Wixted re-analyzed a subset of the data for which proxy measures of ground truth were available…Their analyses suggested that identification of innocent suspects is less likely and identification of guilty suspects is more likely when using the simultaneous procedures. While future studies are needed, these latter findings raise the possibility that diagnosticity is higher for the simultaneous procedures.”
LIST
honey candy dinner present sword belief shore kitchen cradle snake
TARGETS
honey candy dinner present sword belief shore kitchen cradle snake
Hit Rate= .80
FOILS
drama folly thorn message drink ground doctor woods journal sister
FA Rate= .30
Hit(Correct ID)
TrueState
Present
Absent
Present Absent
DiagnosticDecision
Miss
CorrectRejection
False Alarm(False ID)
.80
.30
.20
.70
Confidence Ratings
"New" "Old"
LuresTargets
Memory StrengthH
ighM
ediu
m
Med
ium
Low
Low
Hig
h
1 2 3 4 5 6
"New" "Old"
LuresTargets
High
Medium
Low
"New" "Old"
LuresTargets
High
Medium
Low
FA = .01
"New" "Old"
LuresTargets
High
Medium
Low
FAR = .01
HR = .31
"New" "Old"
LuresTargets
High
Medium
Low
FAR = .07
"New" "Old"
LuresTargets
High
Medium
Low
FAR = .07
HR = .69
"New" "Old"
LuresTargets
High
Medium
Low
FAR = .16
"New" "Old"
LuresTargets
High
Medium
Low
FAR = .16
HR = .84
1 2 3 4 5 6
1 2 3 4 5 6
"New" "Old"
LuresTargets
High
Medium
Low
FAR = .31
"New" "Old"
LuresTargets
High
Medium
Low
FAR = .31
HR = .93
"New" "Old"
LuresTargets
High
Medium
Low
FAR = .69
"New" "Old"
LuresTargets
High
Medium
Low
FAR = .69
HR = .99
1 2 3 4 5 6
1 2 3 4 5 6
ROC Analysis
FA Rate
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Hit
Rat
e
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
z(FA)
-3.0 -2.5 -2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0
z(H
it)
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
Slope = Lure / Target
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Hit
Rat
e
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
False Alarm Rate
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
z-H
it
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
z-FA
slope = Target
Lure
Slope ≈ .80.31, .01
.69, .01
.84, .16
.93, .31.99, .67
Asymmetrical ROC
Memory Strength
"Old""New"
The Unequal-Variance Signal-Detection Model
Likelihood Ratio
Familiarity
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
"Old""New"
7.38/1
Target
p
1-p
Hit
Hit
Miss
g
1-g
Foil
g
1-gCorrect Rejection
False Alarm
Target
p
1-p
Hit
Hit
Miss
g
1-g
Foil
g
1-gCorrect Rejection
False Alarm
pr(Hit) = p + (1-p)g
pr(FA) = g
pr(Hit) = p + (1-p)FA
pr(Hit) = p + (1-p)g
pr(FA) = g
pr(Hit) = p + (1-p)FA
Just solve for p (because p is the measure of interest)
p = [pr(Hit) – pr(FA)] / [1 – pr(FA)]
p = (Hit – FA) / (1 – FA) Standard “correction for guessing”
p 0.5
FA (g) Hit0 0.5
0.1 0.550.2 0.6 00.3 0.65 10.4 0.70.5 0.750.6 0.80.7 0.850.8 0.9 0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Hit
Rate
FA Rate