Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

, Volume 21, Issue 2, pp 479–487 | Cite as

Revisiting absolute and relative judgments in the WITNESS model

Comment
  • 384 Downloads

Abstract

The WITNESS model (Clark in Applied Cognitive Psychology 17:629–654, 2003) provides a theoretical framework with which to investigate the factors that contribute to eyewitness identification decisions. One key factor involves the contributions of absolute versus relative judgments. An absolute contribution is determined by the degree of match between an individual lineup member and memory for the perpetrator; a relative contribution involves the degree to which the best-matching lineup member is a better match to memory than the remaining lineup members. In WITNESS, the proportional contributions of relative versus absolute judgments are governed by the values of the decision weight parameters. We conducted an exploration of the WITNESS model’s parameter space to determine the identifiability of these relative/absolute decision weight parameters, and compared the results to a restricted version of the model that does not vary the decision weight parameters. This exploration revealed that the decision weights in WITNESS are difficult to identify: Data often can be fit equally well by setting the decision weights to nearly any value and compensating with a criterion adjustment. Clark, Erickson, and Breneman (Law and Human Behavior 35:364–380, 2011) claimed to demonstrate a theoretical basis for the superiority of lineup decisions that are based on absolute contributions, but the relationship between the decision weights and the criterion weakens this claim. These findings necessitate reconsidering the role of the relative/absolute judgment distinction in eyewitness decision making.

Keywords

Eyewitness identification Relative and absolute judgments Computational modeling WITNESS model 

References

  1. Bamber, D., & van Santen, J. P. H. (2000). How to assess a model’s testability and identifiability. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 44, 20–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Clark, S. E. (2003). A memory and decision model for eyewitness identification. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 629–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Clark, S. E., & Davey, S. L. (2005). The target-to-foils shift in simultaneous and sequential lineups. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 151–172.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Clark, S. E., Erickson, M. A., & Breneman, J. (2011). Probative value of absolute and relative judgments in eyewitness identification. Law and Human Behavior, 35, 364–380.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clark, S. E., & Gronlund, S. D. (1996). Global matching models of recognition memory: How the models match the data. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3, 37–60. doi:10.3758/BF03210740 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dunning, D., & Stern, L. B. (1994). Distinguishing accurate from inaccurate eyewitness identifications via inquiries about decision processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 818–835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Goodsell, C. A., Gronlund, S. D., & Carlson, C. A. (2010). Exploring the sequential lineup advantage using WITNESS. Law and Human Behavior, 34, 445–459.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gronlund, S. D., Andersen, S. M., & Perry, C. (2013). Presentation methods. In B. Cutler (Ed.), Reform of eyewitness identification procedures (pp. 113–138). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hintzman, D. L. (1986). “Schema abstraction” in a multiple-trace memory model. Psychological Review, 93, 411–428. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.93.4.411 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hintzman, D. L. (1991). Why are formal models useful in psychology? In W. E. Hockley & S. Lewandowsky (Eds.), Relating theory and data: Essays on human memory in honor of Bennet B. Murdock (pp. 39–56). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  11. Kneller, W., Memon, A., & Stevenage, S. (2001). Simultaneous and sequential lineups: Decision processes of accurate and inaccurate eyewitnesses. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 15, 659–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lewandowsky, S., & Farrell, S. (2011). Computational modeling in cognition: Principles and practice. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lindsay, R. C. L., Lea, J. A., Nosworthy, G. J., Fulford, J. A., Hector, J., LeVan, V., & Seabrook, C. (1991). Biased lineups: Sequential presentation reduces the problem. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 796–802.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lindsay, R. C. L., & Wells, G. L. (1985). Improving eyewitness identifications from lineups: Simultaneous versus sequential lineup presentation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 556–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. MacLin, O. H., Zimmerman, L. A., & Malpass, R. S. (2005). PC_Eyewitness and the sequential superiority effect: Computer-based lineup administration. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 303–321.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Sauer, J. D., Brewer, N., & Weber, N. (2008). Multiple confidence estimates as indices of eyewitness memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 137, 528–547. doi:10.1037/a0012712 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Wells, G. L. (1984). The psychology of lineup identifications. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 14, 89–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Wells, G. L. (1993). What do we know about eyewitness identification? American Psychologist, 48, 553–571.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Wells, G. L., Small, M., Penrod, S. D., Malpass, R. S., Fulero, S. M., & Brimacombe, C. A. E. (1998). Eyewitness identification procedures: Recommendations for lineups and photospreads. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of OklahomaNormanUSA

Personalised recommendations