Thinking outside the red box: Does the simultaneous Showup distinguish between filler siphoning and diagnostic feature detection accounts of lineup/Showup differences?

IF 2.8 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL Cognition Pub Date : 2024-08-31 DOI:10.1016/j.cognition.2024.105930
Amber M. Giacona , Brynn N. Schuetter , Lana E. Dranow , Christopher S. Peters , James Michael Lampinen
{"title":"Thinking outside the red box: Does the simultaneous Showup distinguish between filler siphoning and diagnostic feature detection accounts of lineup/Showup differences?","authors":"Amber M. Giacona ,&nbsp;Brynn N. Schuetter ,&nbsp;Lana E. Dranow ,&nbsp;Christopher S. Peters ,&nbsp;James Michael Lampinen","doi":"10.1016/j.cognition.2024.105930","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Lineups are considered a superior method of identification to showups, but why is contested. There are two main theories: diagnostic feature detection theory, which holds that surrounding the suspect with fillers causes the eyewitness to focus on the features that are most diagnostic, and differential filler siphoning theory that claims that the fillers draw incorrect choices away from the suspect. <span><span>Colloff and Wixted (2020)</span></span> created a novel identification task, called a simultaneous showup, designed to prevent filler siphoning, while still allowing comparison to occur between members of the array. However, even in the simultaneous showup, it is possible that covert filler siphoning occurs. In Experiment 1, we replicated the simultaneous showup condition and also asked participants if the other photos affected their decision making; we found evidence that participants self-reported both diagnostic feature detection and covert filler siphoning. In Experiment 2, we replicated <span><span>Colloff and Wixted (2020, Experiment 3)</span></span> main findings. Additionally, we found that participants self-reported both diagnostic feature detection and covert filler siphoning. This led us to conclude that the simultaneous showup procedure could not fully exclude covert filler siphoning from occurring.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48455,"journal":{"name":"Cognition","volume":"253 ","pages":"Article 105930"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-31","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/S0010027724002166","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

Lineups are considered a superior method of identification to showups, but why is contested. There are two main theories: diagnostic feature detection theory, which holds that surrounding the suspect with fillers causes the eyewitness to focus on the features that are most diagnostic, and differential filler siphoning theory that claims that the fillers draw incorrect choices away from the suspect. Colloff and Wixted (2020) created a novel identification task, called a simultaneous showup, designed to prevent filler siphoning, while still allowing comparison to occur between members of the array. However, even in the simultaneous showup, it is possible that covert filler siphoning occurs. In Experiment 1, we replicated the simultaneous showup condition and also asked participants if the other photos affected their decision making; we found evidence that participants self-reported both diagnostic feature detection and covert filler siphoning. In Experiment 2, we replicated Colloff and Wixted (2020, Experiment 3) main findings. Additionally, we found that participants self-reported both diagnostic feature detection and covert filler siphoning. This led us to conclude that the simultaneous showup procedure could not fully exclude covert filler siphoning from occurring.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
跳出红框思考:同步展示是否能区分填充物虹吸和诊断特征检测对阵容/展示差异的解释?
列队指认被认为是优于示众指认的一种指认方法,但其原因却存在争议。主要有两种理论:一种是诊断特征检测理论,该理论认为,用填充物围绕嫌疑人会使目击者将注意力集中在最有诊断价值的特征上;另一种是差异填充物虹吸理论,该理论认为,填充物会将错误的选择从嫌疑人身上吸引走。Colloff 和 Wixted(2020 年)创造了一种新颖的识别任务,称为 "同时展示",旨在防止填充物虹吸,同时仍允许在阵列成员之间进行比较。然而,即使在同时展示中,也有可能发生隐蔽的填充物虹吸。在实验 1 中,我们复制了同时展示的条件,同时询问参与者其他照片是否影响了他们的决策;我们发现有证据表明,参与者自我报告了诊断性特征检测和隐蔽性填充物虹吸。在实验 2 中,我们重复了 Colloff 和 Wixted(2020 年,实验 3)的主要发现。此外,我们还发现被试同时自我报告了诊断性特征检测和隐蔽性填充物虹吸。这使我们得出结论:同时展示程序并不能完全排除隐蔽填充物虹吸的发生。
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 去求助
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.
期刊最新文献
The role of exceptions in children's and adults' judgments about generic statements. Partisan language in a polarized world: In-group language provides reputational benefits to speakers while polarizing audiences. What's left of the leftward bias in scene viewing? Lateral asymmetries in information processing during early search guidance. Language enables the acquisition of distinct sensorimotor memories for speech. Morality on the road: Should machine drivers be more utilitarian than human drivers?
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1