Collective directional movement and the perception of social cohesion

Stuart Wilson - ORCID 0000-0003-2119-5209 http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2119-5209Jamal K. Mansour - ORCID 0000-0001-7162-8493 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7162-8493Replaced AM with VoR 09 Jan 2020We argue that perceivers associate collective directional movement – groups moving from one place to the next – with higher levels of social cohesion. Study 1 shows that pairs are rated as being more cohesive when described as engaging in directional movement compared to non-directional activities. Study 2 replicates this finding using film clips. Study 3 reveals that the proximity of directionally moving dyads is a better predictor of perceived cohesion than behavioural synchrony. Study 4 replicates the original finding and reveals that perceptions of common fate and shared goals both contribute to the effect, with the former having more predictive power than the latter. We suggest that collective directional movement is an invariant part of social environments and is utilised by perceivers to make inferences about social dynamics.https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.1236159pubpub

The confidence-accuracy relationship using scale versus other methods of assessing confidence

Historically, researchers have collected eyewitness identification confidence using scales; however, in practice, eyewitnesses are more commonly asked for a verbal statement. In Experiment 1, participants viewed a simultaneous lineup and provided confidence in their own words, by explaining why they made their decision, or by selecting from statements made by real eyewitnesses, and then provided a scale rating (0-100%) or provided only the scale rating. In Experiment 2, participants viewed a sequential lineup and provided confidence in their own words followed by the scale rating or only the scale rating. Confidence predicted identification accuracy in all conditions, although verbal statements were highly variable and challenging to interpret. For example, only when scale-based confidence was high (80%+) did interpretation of the verbal confidence statement reliably align with scale-based confidence. These data highlight the complexity of verbal confidence statements and the need to establish meaningful boundaries for interpreting verbal confidence statements.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2020.01.0039pubpub

Eye tracking and eyewitness memory.

For more than a century psychologists have utilized eye tracking as a window into how we think and how we feel, and to test theories of the mind and its mental processes. A range of forensic topics has been investigated with eye tracking, such as the effect of weapon exposure (e.g., Hope & Wright, 2008), visual attention in anti-social personality disorder (e.g., Ceballos & Bauer, 2004), and the role of expertise in deception detection (Bond, 2008). Recently, researchers have begun to use eye tracking to study eyewitness decision processes in criminal lineup identification (e.g., Mansour, Lindsay, Brewer, & Munhall, 2009). This paper reviews the application of eye tracking technology in criminal identification lineup research and discusses issues that arise in translating eye movements to reveal eyewitness decision processes

Variability in verbal eyewitness confidence

VoR added to repository 2024-03-19.Typically, an eyewitness' verbal confidence is used to judge the reliability of their lineup identification. Across three experiments (N = 3976), we examined eyewitnesses' own words confidence in their lineup decision. For identification decisions (n = 1099), we identified 781 quantitatively unique responses representing 132 qualitatively unique statements that could be categorized into low, medium, and high confidence. For rejectors (n = 781), we identified 599 quantitatively unique responses representing 143 qualitatively unique responses that could be categorized into low, medium, and high confidence. Most participants provided a verbal phrase (e.g., pretty sure) but a significant proportion—34.19% of identifiers and 29.05% of rejectors—provided numbers (e.g., 80%). The present data highlight the variability in how confidence is expressed. The criminal justice system would benefit from guidance for interpreting verbal confidence. We provide a picture of eyewitnesses' verbal confidence as a first step.pubpu

“Only your first yes will count”: The impact of pre-lineup instructions on sequential lineup decisions

When administering sequential lineups, researchers often inform their participants that only their first yes response will count. This instruction differs from the original sequential lineup protocol and from how sequential lineups are conducted in practice. Participants (N = 896) viewed a videotaped mock crime and viewed a simultaneous lineup, a sequential lineup with a first-yes-counts instruction, or a sequential control lineup (with no first-yes-counts instruction); the lineup was either target-present or target-absent. Participants in the first-yes-counts condition were less likely to identify the suspect and more likely to reject the lineup than participants in the simultaneous and sequential control conditions, suggesting a conservative criterion shift. The diagnostic value of suspect identifications, as measured by partial Area Under the Curve, was lower in the first-yes-counts lineup than in the simultaneous lineup. Results were qualitatively similar for other metrics of diagnosticity, though the differences were not statistically significant. Differences between the simultaneous and sequential control lineups were negligible on all outcomes. The first-yes-counts instruction undermines sequential lineup performance and produces an artefactual simultaneous lineup advantage. Researchers should adhere to sequential lineup protocols that maximize diagnosticity and that would feasibly be implemented in practice, allowing them to draw more generalizable conclusions from their data.This research was supported in part by a grant to the third-author from the Centre for Applies Social Sciences at Queen Margaret University.https://doi.org/10.1037/xap000033727pubpub

Are multiple-trial experiments appropriate for eyewitness identification studies? Accuracy, choosing, and confidence across trials

Eyewitness identification experiments typically involve a single trial: a participant views an event and subsequently makes a lineup decision. Compared to this single-trial paradigm, multiple-trial designs are more efficient but significantly reduce ecological validity and may affect the strategies participants use to make lineup decisions. We examined the effects of a number of forensically-relevant variables (i.e., memory strength, type of disguise, degree of disguise, and lineup type) on eyewitness accuracy, choosing, and confidence across 12 target-present and 12 target-absent lineup trials (N = 349; 8,376 lineup decisions). Rates of correct rejections and choosing (across both target-present and -absent lineups) did not vary across the 24 trials as reflected by main effects or interactions with trial number. Trial number had a significant but trivial quadratic effect on correct identifications (OR = 0.99) and interacted significantly, but again trivially, with disguise type (OR = 1.00). Trial number did not significantly influence participants' confidence in correct identifications, confidence in correct rejections, or confidence in target-absent selections. Thus, multiple-trial designs appear to have minimal effects on eyewitness accuracy, choosing, and confidence. Researchers should consider using multiple-trial designs for conducting eyewitness identification experiments.div_PaS49pub4633pu

Characterizing visual behaviour in a lineup task

Portions of this research were presented at the 2006 meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society and at the 2007 meeting Off the Witness Stand: Using Psychology in the Practice of Justice.Eye tracking was used to monitor participants' visual behaviour while viewing lineups in order to determine whether gaze behaviour predicted decision accuracy. Participants viewed taped crimes followed by simultaneous lineups. Participants (N-=-34) viewed 4 target-present and 4 target-absent lineups. Decision time, number of fixations and duration of fixations differed for selections vs. non-selections. Correct and incorrect selections differed only in terms of comparison-type behaviour involving the selected face. Correct and incorrect non-selections could be distinguished by decision time, number of fixations and duration of fixations on the target or most-attended face and comparisons. Implications of visual behaviour for judgment strategy (relative vs. absolute) are discusseddiv_PaS23pub3247pub

Evaluating lineup fairness: Variations across methods and measures

Triers of fact sometimes consider lineup fairness when determining the suggestiveness of an identification procedure. Likewise, researchers often consider lineup fairness when comparing results across studies. Despite their importance, lineup fairness measures have received scant empirical attention and researchers inconsistently conduct and report mock-witness tasks and lineup fairness measures. We conducted a large-scale, online experiment (N = 1010) to examine how lineup fairness measures varied with mock-witness task methodologies as well as to explore the validity and reliability of the measures. In comparison to descriptions compiled from multiple witnesses, when individual descriptions were presented in the mock-witness task, lineup fairness measures indicated a higher number of plausible lineup members but more bias towards the suspect. Target-absent lineups were consistently estimated to be fairer than target-present lineups-which is problematic because it suggests that lineups containing innocent suspects are less likely to be challenged in court than lineups containing guilty suspects. Correlations within lineup size measures and within some lineup bias measures indicated convergent validity and the correlations across the lineup size and lineup bias measures demonstrated discriminant validity. The reliability of lineup fairness measures across different descriptions was low and reliability across different sets of mock witnesses was moderate to high, depending on the measure. Researchers reporting lineup fairness measures should specify the type of description presented, the amount of detail in the description, and whether the mock witnesses viewed target-present and/or -absent lineups.div_PaS41pub4364pub

Beyond sequential presentation: Misconceptions and misrepresentations of sequential lineups

Malpass, Tredoux, and McQuiston-Surrett (2009), hereinafter 'MTM', provide comments on the sequential lineup, research comparing sequential and simultaneous lineups, and the policy implications of this literature. We will comment on points of agreement and disagreement. First, we agree with the following: (1) Peer review, publication of results, and diversity of methods, procedures, and subject populations significantly contribute to the value of research as a basis both for psychological understanding and for recommended policy. (2) Absence of error, omission, and confounds make interpretation and application easier. These conclusions are not revolutionary but seem to occupy a great deal of MTM's thinking. We disagree with many things that MTM have to say but have room here only to address a few.div_PaS14pub3253pub

Sequential lineup presentation: Patterns and policy

Sequential lineups were offered as an alternative to the traditional simultaneous lineup. Sequential lineups reduce incorrect lineup selections; however, the accompanying loss of correct identifications has resulted in controversy regarding adoption of the technique. We discuss the procedure and research relevant to (1) the pattern of results found using sequential versus simultaneous lineups; (2) reasons (theory) for differences in witness responses; (3) two methodological issues; and (4) implications for policy decisions regarding the adoption of sequential lineups.div_PaS14pub3252pub