ArticleScientific reports2023
Evaluating the impact of first-yes-counts instructions on eyewitness performance using the two-high threshold eyewitness identification model.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Validating a multinomial processing tree model for measuring confidence in lineups using a post-response feedback manipulation.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2026Article
- Detection of culprit presence in multiple-culprit crimes: A comparison of combined and separate lineup-presentation formats.PloS one · 2026Article
- Delays reduce culprit-presence detection but do not affect guessing-based selection in response to lineups.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Lineup position affects guessing-based selection but not culprit-presence detection in simultaneous and sequential lineups.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- On the possible advantages of combining small lineups with instructions that discourage guessing-based selection.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- On the advantages of using AI-generated images of filler faces for creating fair lineups.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Phenotypic mismatch between suspects and fillers but not phenotypic bias increases eyewitness identifications of Black suspects.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
- The effects of lineup size on the processes underlying eyewitness decisions.Scientific reports · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In eyewitness research, multiple identification decisions in sequential lineups are typically prevented by telling participants that only their first identification decision counts. These first-yes-counts instructions are incompatible with standard police protocols prescribing that witnesses shall see the entire lineup. Horry et al. were the first to experimentally test how this discrepancy between eyewitness research and standard police protocols affects eyewitness identification decisions. Here, the two-high threshold eyewitness identification model was used to disentangle the effect of the first-yes-counts instructions on the detection and guessing processes underlying eyewitness identification decisions. We report both a reanalysis of Horry et al.'s data and a conceptual replication. Both the reanalysis and the results of the conceptual replication confirm that first-yes-counts instructions do not affect the detection of the culprit but decrease the probability of guessing-based selections. To improve the ecological validity, research on sequential lineups should avoid first-yes-counts instructions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.