Verbalizing Facial Memory: Criterion Effects in Verbal Overshadowing.

Clare, Joseph; Lewandowsky, Stephan

doi:10.1037/0278-7393.30.4.739

Cited by 58 publications

(104 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…An alternative would be to use any nonconflicting detail mentioned in the descriptions (i.e., a comprehensive description). It is often difficult to determine how descriptions are combined when researchers fail to report how descriptions are obtained or produced (e.g., Clare & Lewandowsky, 2004 provided no LINEUP FAIRNESS MEASURES 7 information; Haw &Fisher, 2004 andRyan, 1993 indicated they constructed a general description). Thus, we examined whether lineup fairness measures vary based on the type of description presented to mock witnesses.…”

Section: Descriptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating lineup fairness: Variations across methods and measures.

Mansour¹,

Beaudry²,

Kalmet³

et al. 2017

Law and Human Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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 = 1,010) 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 toward 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.

show abstract

Section: Descriptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating lineup fairness: Variations across methods and measures.

Mansour¹,

Beaudry²,

Kalmet³

et al. 2017

Law and Human Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…On the other hand, simple accounts often fall short when models are fit to data. There has been some progress in terms of fitting decision models to data (Clare & Lewandowsky, 2004;Clark, 2003), but this work has just scratched the surface.…”

Section: Didn't Do It Then Why Did the Witness Identify Him?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Eyewitness identification evidence and innocence risk

Clark

Godfrey

2009

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is well known that the frailties of human memory and vulnerability to suggestion lead to eyewitness identification errors. However, variations in different aspects of the eyewitnessing conditions produce different kinds of errors that are related to wrongful convictions in very different ways. We present a review of the eyewitness identification literature, organized around underlying cognitive mechanisms, memory, similarity, and decision processes, assessing the effects on both correct and mistaken identification. In addition, we calculate a conditional probability we call innocence risk, which is the probability that the suspect is innocent, given that the suspect was identified. Assessment of innocence risk is critical to the theoretical development of eyewitness identification research, as well as to legal decision making and policy evaluation. Our review shows a complex relationship between misidentification and innocence risk, sheds light on some areas of controversy, and suggests that some issues thought to be resolved are in need of additional research.

show abstract

“…Clare and Lewandowsky (2004) showed that participants who had previously described the target face, compared to those providing no description, were more likely to say that the target was "not present" in a recognition line-up (i.e. they adopted a more conservative response bias).…”

Section: Comparing Effects Of Verbalization In Imagery and Face Recogmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…a retrieval-based interference account, e.g. Brandimonte & Collina, 2008, Schooler & Engstler-Schooler, 1990 or response bias criterions (Clare & Lewandowsky, 2004). Due to the nature of the recognition memory tests we used, a shift in response criterion account cannot apply: participants were forced to identify the target form from the recognition test, and this removed the opportunity to observe changes in response bias (c.f.…”

Section: Processing Vs Representational Accountsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…recognition and imagery) and higher level cognitive tasks (e.g. problem-solving, Schooler et al, 1993; applying a decision criterion, Clare & Lewandowsky, 2004). It may be that verbalization systematically elicits a global or featural orientation, and that this provides a higher-level explanation that can encompass previously posited lower-level explanations of how verbalization influences visual memory (e.g.…”

Section: A Multi-process View Of the Effects Of Verbalization On Visumentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

When do words hurt? A multiprocess view of the effects of verbalization on visual memory.

Brown

Brandimonte

Wickham

et al. 2014

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Verbal overshadowing reflects the impairment in memory performance following verbalization of nonverbal stimuli. However, it is not clear whether the same mechanisms are responsible for verbal overshadowing effects observed with different stimuli and task demands. In the present article, we propose a multi-process view that reconciles the main theoretical explanations of verbal overshadowing deriving from the use of different paradigms. Within a single paradigm, we manipulated both the nature of verbalization at encoding (nameability of the stimuli) and post-encoding (verbal descriptions), as well as the nature (image transformation or recognition) and by implication the demands of the final memory task (global or featural). Results from three experiments replicated the negative effects of encoding and post-encoding verbalization in imagery and recognition tasks, respectively. However, they also showed that the demands of the final memory task can modulate or even reverse verbal overshadowing effects due to both post-encoding verbalization and naming during encoding.

show abstract

Verbalizing Facial Memory: Criterion Effects in Verbal Overshadowing.

Cited by 58 publications

References 43 publications

Evaluating lineup fairness: Variations across methods and measures.

Evaluating lineup fairness: Variations across methods and measures.

Eyewitness identification evidence and innocence risk

When do words hurt? A multiprocess view of the effects of verbalization on visual memory.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About