Individual Differences Predict Eyewitness Identification Performance

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shannon M. Andersen ◽  
Curt A. Carlson ◽  
Maria Carlson ◽  
Scott D. Gronlund
2014 ◽  
Vol 60 ◽  
pp. 36-40 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shannon M. Andersen ◽  
Curt A. Carlson ◽  
Maria A. Carlson ◽  
Scott D. Gronlund

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shannon Andersen ◽  
Curt A. Carlson ◽  
Maria Carlson ◽  
Scott Gronlund

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sergii Yaremenko ◽  
Melanie Sauerland ◽  
Lorraine Hope

AbstractThe circadian rhythm regulates arousal levels throughout the day and determines optimal periods for engaging in mental activities. Individuals differ in the time of day at which they reach their peak: Morning-type individuals are at their best in the morning and evening types perform better in the evening. Performance in recall and recognition of non-facial stimuli is generally superior at an individual’s circadian peak. In two studies (Ns = 103 and 324), we tested the effect of time-of-testing optimality on eyewitness identification performance. Morning- and evening-type participants viewed stimulus films depicting staged crimes and made identification decisions from target-present and target-absent lineups either at their optimal or non-optimal time-of-day. We expected that participants would make more accurate identification decisions and that the confidence-accuracy and decision time-accuracy relationships would be stronger at optimal compared to non-optimal time of day. In Experiment 1, identification accuracy was unexpectedly superior at non-optimal compared to optimal time of day in target-present lineups. In Experiment 2, identification accuracy did not differ between the optimal and non-optimal time of day. Contrary to our expectations, confidence-accuracy relationship was generally stronger at non-optimal compared to optimal time of day. In line with our predictions, non-optimal testing eliminated decision-time-accuracy relationship in Experiment 1.


2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (5) ◽  
pp. 31-42
Author(s):  
Adnan Fazlić ◽  
Irma Deljkić ◽  
Ray Bull

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mario J. Baldassari ◽  
Kara N. Moore ◽  
Ira Hyman ◽  
LORRAINE HOPE ◽  
Eric Mah ◽  
...  

Research on eyewitness identification often involves exposing participants to a simulated crime and later testing memory using a lineup. We conducted a systematic review showing that pre-event instructions, instructions given before event exposure, are rarely reported and those that are reported vary in the extent to which they warn participants about the nature of event or tasks. At odds with the experience of actual witnesses, some studies use pre-event instructions explicitly warning participants of the upcoming crime and lineup task. Both the basic and applied literature provide reason to believe that pre-event instructions may impact eyewitness identification performance. In Experiment 1, we will test the effect of pre-event instructions on lineup identification decisions and confidence. Participants will receive non-specific pre-event instructions (i.e., “watch this video”) or eyewitness pre-event instructions (i.e., “watch this crime video, you’ll complete a line-up later”) and complete a culprit absent or present lineup. In Experiment 2, we will manipulate exposure duration and pre-event instructions to determine if pre-event instructions differentially impact high or low quality eyewitness events. If pre-event instructions impact eyewitness identification accuracy, then the findings of existing studies need to be considered in the context of their pre-event instructions and future work will be needed to determine how instructions interact with existing systems and estimator variables.


2018 ◽  
Vol 285 (1888) ◽  
pp. 20181319 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. Jenkins ◽  
A. J. Dowsett ◽  
A. M. Burton

Over our species history, humans have typically lived in small groups of under a hundred individuals. However, our face recognition abilities appear to equip us to recognize very many individuals, perhaps thousands. Modern society provides access to huge numbers of faces, but no one has established how many faces people actually know. Here, we describe a method for estimating this number. By combining separate measures of recall and recognition, we show that people know about 5000 faces on average and that individual differences are large. Our findings offer a possible explanation for large variation in identification performance. They also provide constraints on understanding the qualitative differences between perception of familiar and unfamiliar faces—a distinction that underlies all current theories of face recognition.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document