Clarifying the effects of sequential item presentation in the police lineup task

IF 2.8 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Matthew Kaesler , John C. Dunn , Carolyn Semmler
{"title":"Clarifying the effects of sequential item presentation in the police lineup task","authors":"Matthew Kaesler ,&nbsp;John C. Dunn ,&nbsp;Carolyn Semmler","doi":"10.1016/j.cognition.2024.105840","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Previous research has reported diverging patterns of results with respect to discriminability and response bias when comparing the simultaneous lineup to two different lineup procedures in which items are presented sequentially, the sequential stopping rule lineup and the UK lineup. In a single large sample experiment, we compared discriminability and response bias in six-item photographic lineups presented either simultaneously, sequentially with a stopping rule, or sequentially requiring two full laps through the items before making an identification and including the ability to revisit items, analogous to the UK lineup procedure. Discriminability was greater for the simultaneous lineup compared to the sequential stopping rule lineup, despite a non-significant difference in empirical discriminability between the procedures. There was no significant difference in discriminability when comparing the simultaneous lineup to the sequential two lineup and the sequential two lap lineup to the sequential stopping rule lineup. Responding was most lenient for the sequential two lap lineup, followed by the simultaneous lineup, followed by the sequential lineup. These results imply that sequential item presentation may not exert a large effect in isolation on discriminability and response bias. Rather, discriminability and response bias in the sequential stopping rule lineup and UK lineup result from the interaction of sequential item presentation with other aspects of these procedures.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48455,"journal":{"name":"Cognition","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognition","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010027724001264","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Previous research has reported diverging patterns of results with respect to discriminability and response bias when comparing the simultaneous lineup to two different lineup procedures in which items are presented sequentially, the sequential stopping rule lineup and the UK lineup. In a single large sample experiment, we compared discriminability and response bias in six-item photographic lineups presented either simultaneously, sequentially with a stopping rule, or sequentially requiring two full laps through the items before making an identification and including the ability to revisit items, analogous to the UK lineup procedure. Discriminability was greater for the simultaneous lineup compared to the sequential stopping rule lineup, despite a non-significant difference in empirical discriminability between the procedures. There was no significant difference in discriminability when comparing the simultaneous lineup to the sequential two lineup and the sequential two lap lineup to the sequential stopping rule lineup. Responding was most lenient for the sequential two lap lineup, followed by the simultaneous lineup, followed by the sequential lineup. These results imply that sequential item presentation may not exert a large effect in isolation on discriminability and response bias. Rather, discriminability and response bias in the sequential stopping rule lineup and UK lineup result from the interaction of sequential item presentation with other aspects of these procedures.

澄清警察列队任务中顺序项目呈现的影响
以往的研究报告显示,在比较同时列队和两种不同的列队程序(即顺序停止规则列队和英国式列队)时,在辨别力和反应偏差方面出现了不同的结果模式。在一次大样本实验中,我们比较了六项照相排序的可辨别性和反应偏差,这两种排序方式分别是:同时排序、顺序排序(有停止规则)或顺序排序(在进行辨别之前需要将项目看两遍),其中顺序排序还包括重新查看项目的能力,类似于英国的排序程序。与顺序停止规则排队相比,同时排队的辨别能力更强,尽管两种程序之间的经验辨别能力差异不大。同时列队与按顺序两两列队相比,以及按顺序两圈列队与按顺序停止规则列队相比,辨别能力没有明显差异。顺序两圈排列的反应最宽松,其次是同时排列,再次是顺序排列。这些结果表明,顺序项目的呈现可能不会单独对辨别力和反应偏差产生很大的影响。相反,顺序停止规则排队和英国式排队中的可辨别性和反应偏差是顺序项目呈现与这些程序的其他方面相互作用的结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Cognition
Cognition PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
5.90%
发文量
283
期刊介绍: Cognition is an international journal that publishes theoretical and experimental papers on the study of the mind. It covers a wide variety of subjects concerning all the different aspects of cognition, ranging from biological and experimental studies to formal analysis. Contributions from the fields of psychology, neuroscience, linguistics, computer science, mathematics, ethology and philosophy are welcome in this journal provided that they have some bearing on the functioning of the mind. In addition, the journal serves as a forum for discussion of social and political aspects of cognitive science.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信