Policy regarding the sequential lineup is not informed by probative value but is informed by ROC analysis.

It is important to determine if switching from simultaneous to sequential lineups affects response bias (the inclination to make an identification from a lineup), discriminability (the ability to distinguish between innocent and guilty suspects), or both. Measures of probative value cannot provide such information; receiver operating characteristic analysis can. Recent receiver operating characteristic analyses indicate that switching to sequential lineups both induces more conservative responding and makes it more difficult to distinguish between innocent and guilty suspects. If more conservative responding is preferred (i.e., if policymakers judge that the harm associated with the reduction of correct identifications is exceeded by the benefit associated with the reduction in false identifications), recent data indicate that this result can be achieved without a loss of discriminability by using the simultaneous lineup procedure in conjunction with a more conservative decision criterion.Yeshttps://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/manuscript-submission-guideline

Making TV Commercials as a Teaching Aid for Cognitive Psychology

Many students approach psychology in general, and cognitive psychology in particular, with serious misconceptions about the scientific nature of the discipline. In order to address this problem and bring laboratory findings in cognitive psychology into a real world context, we asked students in an introductory cognitive course to make TV commercials using principles learned in class. The success of the approach became evident from analysis of course evaluation forms and the generally high quality of students' productions.Yeshttps://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/manuscript-submission-guideline

Evaluating eyewitness identification procedures using ROC analysis.

Eyewitness identification is a pivotal issue in applied research because, in practice, a correct identification can help to remove a dangerous criminal from society, but a false identification can lead to the erroneous conviction of an innocent suspect. Consequently, psychologists have tried to ascertain the best procedures for collecting identification evidence, evaluating them using measures based on the ratio of correct to false identification rates. Unfortunately, ratio-based measures are ambiguous because they change systematically as a function of a witness’s willingness to choose. In other words, a measure thought to index discriminability is instead fully confounded with response bias. A better method involves constructing receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. Using ROC curves, researchers can trace out discriminability across levels of response bias for each procedure. We illustrate the shortcomings of ratio-based measures and demonstrate why ROC analysis is required. In recent studies, researchers comparing simultaneous and sequential lineup procedures using ROC analyses have provided no evidence for the sequential superiority effect and instead have shown that the simultaneous procedure may be diagnostically superior. It is not yet clear which lineup procedure will prove to be generally superior, but it is clear that ROC analysis is the only way to make that determination.Yeshttps://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/manuscript-submission-guideline

Workload and Performance in FOPA: A Strategic Planning Interface for Air Traffic Control

The Flight Organizer Planning Aid (FOPA) interface was designed to aid strategic planning in air traffic control. In particular, FOPA was designed to address difficulties in solving en route sequencing problems (combining multiple streams of traffic into a single stream heading for a destination). We compared the planning performance of 12 full performance level air traffic controllers using either the FOPA interface or normal flight progress strips. Planning performance was significantly better when using FOPA; subjective workload was also reduced. The results indicate that a key advantage of FOPA lies in its dynamic linkage between the flight organizer screen where aircraft tokens can be categorized into color-coded blocks and their matching spatial representation on the radar.Yeshttps://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/manuscript-submission-guideline

ROCs in Eyewitness Identification:Instructions versus Confidence Ratings

From the perspective of signal-detection theory, different lineup instructions may induce different levels of response bias (Clark, 2005). If so, then collecting correct and false identification rates across different instructional conditions will trace out the ROC – the same ROC that, theoretically, could also be traced out from a single instruction condition in which each eyewitness decision is accompanied by a confidence rating. We tested whether the two approaches do in fact yield the same ROC. Participants were assigned to a confidence rating condition or to an instructional biasing condition (liberal, neutral, unbiased, or conservative). After watching a video of a mock crime, participants were presented with instructions followed by a 6-person simultaneous photo lineup. The ROCs from both methods were similar, but they were not exactly the same. These findings have potentially important policy implications for how the legal system should go about controlling eyewitness response bias

Blame framing and prior knowledge influence moral judgments for people involved in the Tulsa Race Massacre among a combined Oklahoma and UK sample

IntroductionHow an event is framed impacts how people judge the morality of those involved, but prior knowledge can influence information processing about an event, which also can impact moral judgments. The current study explored how blame framing and self-reported prior knowledge of a historical act of racial violence, labeled as Riot, Massacre, or Event, impacted individual’s cumulative moral judgments regarding the groups involved in the Tulsa Race Massacre (Black Tulsans, the Tulsa Police, and White Tulsans).Methods and resultsThis study was collected in two cohorts including undergraduates attending the University of Oklahoma and individuals living in the United Kingdom. Participants were randomly assigned to a blame framing condition, read a factual summary of what happened in Tulsa in 1921, and then responded to various moral judgment items about each group. Individuals without prior knowledge had higher average Likert ratings (more blame) toward Black Tulsans and lower average Likert ratings (less blame) toward White Tulsans and the Tulsa Police compared to participants with prior knowledge. This finding was largest when what participants read was framed as a Massacre rather than a Riot or Event. We also found participants with prior knowledge significantly differed in how they made moral judgments across target groups; those with prior knowledge had lower average Likert ratings (less blame) for Black Tulsans and higher average Likert ratings (more blame) for White Tulsans on items pertaining to causal responsibility, intentionality, and punishment compared to participants without prior knowledge.DiscussionFindings suggest that the effect of blame framing on moral judgments is dependent on prior knowledge. Implications for how people interpret both historical and new events involving harmful consequences are discussed