| Title |
The impact of fillers on lineup performance
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, November 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s41235-017-0084-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Stacy A. Wetmore, Ryan M. McAdoo, Scott D. Gronlund, Jeffrey S. Neuschatz |
| Abstract |
Filler siphoning theory posits that the presence of fillers (known innocents) in a lineup protects an innocent suspect from being chosen by siphoning choices away from that innocent suspect. This mechanism has been proposed as an explanation for why simultaneous lineups (viewing all lineup members at once) induces better performance than showups (one-person identification procedures). We implemented filler siphoning in a computational model (WITNESS, Clark, Applied Cognitive Psychology 17:629-654, 2003), and explored the impact of the number of fillers (lineup size) and filler quality on simultaneous and sequential lineups (viewing lineups members in sequence), and compared both to showups. In limited situations, we found that filler siphoning can produce a simultaneous lineup performance advantage, but one that is insufficient in magnitude to explain empirical data. However, the magnitude of the empirical simultaneous lineup advantage can be approximated once criterial variability is added to the model. But this modification works by negatively impacting showups rather than promoting more filler siphoning. In sequential lineups, fillers were found to harm performance. Filler siphoning fails to clarify the relationship between simultaneous lineups and sequential lineups or showups. By incorporating constructs like filler siphoning and criterial variability into a computational model, and trying to approximate empirical data, we can sort through explanations of eyewitness decision-making, a prerequisite for policy recommendations. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 40% |
| France | 1 | 10% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 4 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 9 | 90% |
| Scientists | 1 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 11 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 11 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 18% |
| Professor | 2 | 18% |
| Other | 1 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 9% |
| Other | 2 | 18% |
| Unknown | 1 | 9% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 9 | 82% |
| Linguistics | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 1 | 9% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 January 2018.
All research outputs
#4,715,116
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications
#155
of 329 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#99,188
of 440,723 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications
#5
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 329 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 44.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 440,723 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.