Abstract
Which eyewitness identification procedure better enables eyewitnesses to discriminate between innocent and guilty suspects? In other words, which procedure better enables eyewitnesses to sort innocent and guilty suspects into their correct categories? The answer to that objective, theory-free question is what policymakers need to know, and it is precisely the information that ROC analysis provides. Wells et al. largely ignore that question and focus instead on whether ROC analysis accurately measures underlying (theoretical) discriminability for lineups. They argue that the apparent discriminability advantage for lineups over showups is an illusion caused by "filler siphoning." Here, we demonstrate that, both objectively and theoretically, the ability of eyewitnesses to discriminate innocent from guilty suspects is higher for lineups compared to showups, just as the ROC data suggest. Intuitions notwithstanding, filler siphoning does not account for the discriminability advantage for lineups. An actual theory of discriminability is needed to explain that interesting phenomenon.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 329-334 |
| Number of pages | 6 |
| Journal | Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition |
| Volume | 4 |
| Issue number | 4 |
| DOIs |
|
| Publication status | Published - 1 Dec 2015 |
Bibliographical note
Funding Information:This work was supported in part by the National Science Foundation [SES-1456571] to John T. Wixted and the Economic and Social Research Council [ES/L012642/1] to Laura Mickes and John T. Wixted. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation or the Economic and Social Research Council.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2015 Society for Applied Research in Memory and Cognition.
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'ROC analysis measures objective discriminability for any eyewitness identification procedure'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver