Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36854842›Full record

SynthesisCognitive research: principles and implications2023

The effect of pre-event instructions on eyewitness identification.

Mario J Baldassari, Kara N Moore, Ira E Hyman, Lorraine Hope, Eric Y Mah, D Stephen Lindsay, Jamal Mansour, Renan Saraiva, Ruth Horry, Hannah Rath and 13 more

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract readSystematic ReviewVideo-Audio Media
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Cognitive research: principles and implications, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 26% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. The effect of surgical masks on identification decisions from masked and unmasked lineups.Psychiatry, psychology, and law : an interdisciplinary journal of the Australian and New Zealand Association of Psychiatry, Psychology and Law · 2024
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

23 authors at 11 institutions in 5 countries.

Mario J Baldassari *University of Saint Francis, 2701 Spring Street, Fort Wayne, IN, 46808, USA. MBaldassari@sf.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6509-5539
Kara N Moore *Oklahoma State University, 116 Psychology Building, Stillwater, OK, 74074, USA.
Ira E HymanWestern Washington University, 516 High Street, Bellingham, WA, 98225, USA.
Lorraine HopeUniversity of Portsmouth, King Henry I Street, Portsmouth, PO1 2DY, Hampshire, UK.
Eric Y MahUniversity of Victoria, PO Box 1700, STN CSC, Victoria, BC, V8W 2Y2, Canada.
D Stephen LindsayUniversity of Victoria, PO Box 1700, STN CSC, Victoria, BC, V8W 2Y2, Canada.
Jamal MansourUniversity of Lethbridge, 4401 University Drive, Lethbridge, AB, T1K 3M4, Canada.
Renan SaraivaUniversity of Portsmouth, King Henry I Street, Portsmouth, PO1 2DY, Hampshire, UK.
Ruth HorrySwansea University, Singleton Park, Sketty, Swansea, SA2 8PP, UK.
Hannah RathOklahoma State University, 116 Psychology Building, Stillwater, OK, 74074, USA.
Lauren KellySwansea University, Singleton Park, Sketty, Swansea, SA2 8PP, UK.
Rosie JonesSwansea University, Singleton Park, Sketty, Swansea, SA2 8PP, UK.
Shannan ValeSwansea University, Singleton Park, Sketty, Swansea, SA2 8PP, UK.
Bethany LawsonSwansea University, Singleton Park, Sketty, Swansea, SA2 8PP, UK.
Josh PedrettiUniversity of Saint Francis, 2701 Spring Street, Fort Wayne, IN, 46808, USA.
Tomás A PalmaCICPSI, Faculdade de Psicologia, Universidade de Lisboa, Cidade Universitária, Alameda da Universidade, 1649-004, Lisbon, Portugal.
Francisco CruzCICPSI, Faculdade de Psicologia, Universidade de Lisboa, Cidade Universitária, Alameda da Universidade, 1649-004, Lisbon, Portugal.
Joana QuarentaCICPSI, Faculdade de Psicologia, Universidade de Lisboa, Cidade Universitária, Alameda da Universidade, 1649-004, Lisbon, Portugal.
Ine Van der CruyssenUniversity of Amsterdam, 1012 WX, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Mila MilevaUniversity of Plymouth, Drake Circus, Plymouth, PL4 8AA, UK.
Jessica AllenUniversity of Plymouth, Drake Circus, Plymouth, PL4 8AA, UK.
Brittany JeyeWorcester State University, 486 Chandler St, Worcester, MA, 01602, USA.
Sera WiechertUniversity of Amsterdam, 1012 WX, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Swansea University · GBUniversity of Lisbon · PTOklahoma State University · USUniversity of Amsterdam · NLUniversity of Plymouth · GBUniversity of Portsmouth · GBUniversity of Saint Francis · USUniversity of Victoria · CAUniversity of Lethbridge · CAWestern Washington University · USWorcester State University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Research on eyewitness identification often involves exposing participants to a simulated crime and later testing memory using a lineup. We conducted a systematic review showing that pre-event instructions, instructions given before event exposure, are rarely reported and those that are reported vary in the extent to which they warn participants about the nature of the event or tasks. At odds with the experience of actual witnesses, some studies use pre-event instructions explicitly warning participants of the upcoming crime and lineup task. Both the basic and applied literature provide reason to believe that pre-event instructions may affect eyewitness identification performance. In the current experiment, we tested the impact of pre-event instructions on lineup identification decisions and confidence. Participants received non-specific pre-event instructions (i.e., "watch this video") or eyewitness pre-event instructions (i.e., "watch this crime video, you'll complete a lineup later") and completed a culprit-absent or -present lineup. We found no support for the hypothesis that participants who receive eyewitness pre-event instructions have higher discriminability than participants who receive non-specific pre-event instructions. Additionally, confidence-accuracy calibration was not significantly different between conditions. However, participants in the eyewitness condition were more likely to see the event as a crime and to make an identification than participants in the non-specific condition. Implications for conducting and interpreting eyewitness identification research and the basic research on instructions and attention are discussed.

Indexed as

CrimeMental ProcessesCalibrationHumansEyewitness identificationEyewitness memoryLineupStudy instructions

Identifiers

PMID36854842
PMCPMC9975131
OpenAlexW4322625269

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.