Applied aspects of the instructional bias effect in verbal overshadowing

Abstract

Previous studies have demonstrated that instructional manipulation of a participant witness's response criterion on a description task can lead to verbal overshadowing in performance on a subsequent lineup identification task. The current set of experiments attempts to replicate this instructional bias effect in verbal overshadowing and extend the paradigm to include variations in lineup presentation format (Experiment 1) and repeated descriptions prior to identification (Experiment 2). The instructional bias effect is found to persist despite the 'sequential' presentation of lineup members and across repeated recall of a target face 1 week later. Furthermore, both experiments demonstrated that incorrect details generated by participants were predictive of subsequent inaccuracy on the identification task. Both theoretical and applied aspects of the instructional bias effect in verbal overshadowing are discussed.

Verbal facilitation of face recognition

“…In contrast, an increase in the generation of featural information was associated with a decrease in verbal facilitation. We are aware, however, that although in line with the statistical power of similar analyses in the literature (e.g., Meissner, 2002;Wells, 1985), these associations were not particularly strong. 2 Nevertheless, this finding encouraged us to explore further the relationship between the generation of holistic information and verbal facilitation.…”

Sequential vs. Simultaneous Lineups: A Review of Methods, Data, and Theory.

“…In terms of examining all of the specific methodological aspects that might further distinguish the Lindsay studies from others, we have examined those aspects that we can in this respect, as summarized in Table 1. Of course, a host of estimator and system variables (Wells, 1978) can influence lineup performance, including target exposure (e.g., Laughery, Alexander, & Lane, 1971), stress and intoxication (e.g., Read, Yuille, & Tollestrup, 1992), witness/culprit ethnicity (Meissner & Brigham, 2001), the method used to elicit a description (Sporer, 1996), witnesses' response criterion (e.g., Meissner, 2002), witness expectations (e.g., Douglass & McQuiston-Surrett, in press), and post-identification feedback (e.g., Wells & Bradfield, 1998). 6 Our options remain limited for understanding many elements of laboratory practice implemented, however, because the articles in this literature are often not very detailed on the procedures used (a point described earlier in this article).…”

Perceptual and conceptual training mediate the verbal overshadowing effect in an unfamiliar domain

“…According to a recoding interference view (Meissner, 2002;Meissner, Brigham, & Kelley, 2001;Schooler & Engstler-Schooler, 1990) verbalization generates a new verbal representation that distorts or misrepresents the original memory, thereby serving as a source of interference. Alternatively, according to a processing shift account (Dodson, Johnson, & Schooler, 1997;Fallshore & Schooler, 1995;Schooler, 2002;Schooler, Fiore, & Brandimonte, 1997;Schooler, Ryan, & Reder, 1996;Westerman, 1997), verbalization causes a general shift in the manner in which individuals process the critical stimuli.…”