Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38898071›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

On the possible advantages of combining small lineups with instructions that discourage guessing-based selection.

Amelie Therre, Raoul Bell, Nicola Marie Menne, Carolin Mayer, Ulla Lichtenhagen, Axel Buchner

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Amelie TherreDepartment of Experimental Psychology, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Universitätsstraße 1, 40225, Düsseldorf, Germany. Amelie.Therre@hhu.de.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-2345-0218
Raoul BellDepartment of Experimental Psychology, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Universitätsstraße 1, 40225, Düsseldorf, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0592-0362
Nicola Marie MenneDepartment of Experimental Psychology, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Universitätsstraße 1, 40225, Düsseldorf, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9421-8286
Carolin MayerDepartment of Experimental Psychology, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Universitätsstraße 1, 40225, Düsseldorf, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0003-5278-4361
Ulla LichtenhagenDepartment of Experimental Psychology, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Universitätsstraße 1, 40225, Düsseldorf, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-8243-4632
Axel BuchnerDepartment of Experimental Psychology, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Universitätsstraße 1, 40225, Düsseldorf, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4529-3444

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft BU 945/10-1, project number 456214986.
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The primary argument for including large numbers of known-to-be innocent fillers in lineups is that guessing-based selections are dispersed among a large number of lineup members, leading to low innocent-suspect identification rates. However, a recent study using the two-high threshold eyewitness identification model has demonstrated advantages of smaller lineups at the level of the processes underlying the observable responses. Participants were more likely to detect the presence of the culprit and less likely to select lineup members based on guessing in smaller than in larger lineups. Nonetheless, at the level of observable responses, the rate of innocent-suspect identifications was higher in smaller compared to larger lineups due to the decreased dispersion of guessing-based selections among the lineup members. To address this issue, we combined smaller lineups with lineup instructions insinuating that the culprit was unlikely to be in the lineup. The goal was to achieve a particularly low rate of guessing-based selections. These lineups were compared to larger lineups with neutral instructions. In two experiments, culprit-presence detection occurred with a higher probability in smaller compared to larger lineups. Furthermore, instructions insinuating that the culprit was unlikely to be in the lineup reduced guessing-based selection compared to neutral instructions. At the level of observable responses, the innocent-suspect identification rate did not differ between smaller lineups with low-culprit-probability instructions and larger lineups with neutral instructions. The rate of culprit identifications was higher in smaller lineups with low-culprit-probability instructions than in larger lineups with neutral instructions.

Indexed as

Eyewitness identificationLineup instructionsLineup sizeMultinomial processing tree modelPolice lineupsTwo-high threshold eyewitness identification model

Identifiers

PMID38898071
PMCPMC11187131

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.