Configural and component processing in simultaneous and sequential lineup procedures

REFERENCES

• Bartlett, J. C., & Searcy, J. H. (1993). Inversion and configuration of faces. Cognitive Psychology, 25, 281–316. doi:10.1006/cogp.1993.1007
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bruce, V., Doyle, T., Dench, N., & Burton, M. (1991). Remembering facial configurations. Cognition, 38(2), 109–144. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(91)90049-A
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bruce, V., & Young, A. (1986). Understanding face recognition. British Journal of Psychology, 77, 305–327. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8295.1986.tb02199.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cabeza, R., & Kato, T. (2000). Features are also important: Contributions of featural and configural processing to face recognition. Psychological Science, 11, 429–433. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00283
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carlson, C. A. (2011). Influence of a perpetrator's distinctive facial feature on eyewitness identification from simultaneous versus sequential lineups. Applied Psychology in Criminal Justice, 7(2), 77–92.
   Google Scholar
• Carlson, C. A., & Gronlund, S. D. (2011). Searching for the sequential lineup advantage: A distinctiveness explanation. Memory, 19, 916–929. doi:10.1080/09658211.2011.613846
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carlson, C. A., Gronlund, S. D., & Clark, S. E. (2008). Lineup composition, suspect position, and the sequential lineup advantage. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 14(2), 118–128. doi:10.1037/1076-898X.14.2.118
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clark, S. (2012). Costs and benefits of eyewitness identification reform: Psychological science and public policy. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 238–259. doi:10.1177/1745691612439584
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clark, S. E., & Davey, S. L. (2005). The target-to-foils shift in simultaneous and sequential lineups. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 151–172. doi:10.1007/s10979-005-2418-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clark, S. E., Howell, R. T., & Davey, S. L. (2008). Regularities in eyewitness identification. Law and Human Behavior, 32, 187–218. doi:10.1007/s10979-006-9082-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Darling, S., Martin, D., Hellmann, J. H., & Memon, A. (2009). Some witnesses are better than others. Personality & Individual Differences, 47, 369−373. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2009.04.010
   Google Scholar
• Diamond, R., & Carey, S. (1986). Why faces are and are not special: An effect of expertise. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115(2), 107–117. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.115.2.107
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dobolyi, D. G., & Dodson, C. S. (2013). Eyewitness confidence in simultaneous and sequential lineups: A criterion shift account for sequential mistaken identification overconfidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 19, 345–357. doi:10.1037/a0034596
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ebbesen, E. B., & Flowe, H. D. (2002). Simultaneous v. sequential lineups: What do we really know? Unpublished manuscript.
   Google Scholar
• Farah, M. J., Wilson, K. D., Drain, M., & Tanaka, J. N. (1998). What is “special” about face perception? Psychological Review, 105, 482–498. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.105.3.482
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flowe, H. D., & Ebbesen, E. B. (2007). The effect of lineup member similarity on recognition accuracy in simultaneous and sequential lineups. Law and Human Behavior, 31(1), 33–52. doi:10.1007/s10979-006-9045-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freire, A., Lee, K., & Symons, L. A. (2000). The face-inversion effect as a deficit in the encoding of configural information: Direct evidence. Perception, 29, 159–170. doi:10.1068/p3012
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gronlund, S. D. (2005). Sequential lineup advantage: Contributions of distinctiveness and recollection. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19(1), 23–37. doi:10.1002/acp.1047
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gronlund, S. D., Carlson, C. A., Dailey, S. B., & Goodsell, C. A. (2009). Robustness of the sequential lineup advantage. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 15, 140–152. doi:10.1037/a0015082
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gronlund, S. D., Carlson, C. A., Neuschatz, J. S., Goodsell, C. A., Wetmore, S., Wooten, A., & Graham, M. (2012). Showups versus lineups: An evaluation using ROC analysis. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 1, 221–228. doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2012.09.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gronlund, S. D., Wixted, J. T., & Mickes, L. (2014). Evaluating eyewitness identification procedures using ROC analysis. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23, 3–10. doi:10.1177/0963721413498891
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horry, R., Palmer, M. A., & Brewer, N. (2012). Backloading in the sequential lineup prevents within-lineup criterion shifts that undermine eyewitness identification performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 18, 346–360. doi:10.1037/a0029779
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leder, H., & Bruce, V. (2000). When inverted faces are recognised: The role of configural information in face recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53A, 513–536. doi:10.1080/713755889
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindsay, R. C. L., Mansour, J. K., Beaudry, J. L., Leach, A. M., & Bertrand, M. I. (2009). Sequential lineup presentation: Patterns and policy. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 14(1), 13–24. doi:10.1348/135532508X382708
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindsay, R. C., & Wells, G. L. (1985). Improving eyewitness identifications from lineups: Simultaneous versus sequential lineup presentation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 556–564. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.70.3.556
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Macrae, C. N., & Lewis, H. L. (2002). Do I know you?: Processing orientation and face recognition. Psychological Science, 13, 194–196. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00436
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maurer, D., Le Grand, R., Mondloch, C. J. (2002). The many faces of configural processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 255–260. doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(02)01903-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McQuiston-Surrett, D. E., Malpass, R. S., & Tredoux, C. G. (2006). Sequential vs. simultaneous lineups: A review of methods, data, and theory. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 12(2), 137–169. doi:10.1037/1076-8971.12.2.137
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meissner, C. A., Tredoux, C. G., Parker, J. F., & MacLin, O. H. (2005). Eyewitness decisions in simultaneous and sequential lineups: A dual process signal detection theory analysis. Memory & Cognition, 33, 783–792. doi:10.3758/BF03193074
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mickes, L., Flowe, H. D., & Wixted, J. T. (2012). Receiver operating characteristic analysis of eyewitness memory: Comparing the diagnostic accuracy of simultaneous vs. sequential lineups. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 18, 361–376. doi:10.1037/a0030609
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mondloch, C. J., Le Grand, R., & Maurer, D. (2002). Configural face processing develops more slowly than featural face processing. Perception, 31, 553–566. doi:10.1068/p3339
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Research Council (2014). Identifying the culprit: Assessing eyewitness identification. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• Palmer, M. A., & Brewer, N. (2012). Sequential lineup presentation promotes less biased criterion setting but does not improve disciminability. Law and Human Behavior, 36, 247–255. doi:10.1037/h0093923
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perfect, T. J. (2003). Local processing bias impairs line-up performance. Psychological Reports, 93, 393–394. doi:10.2466/pr0.2003.93.2.393
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perfect, T. J., Dennis, I., & Snell, A. (2007). The effects of local and global processing orientation on eyewitness identification performance. Memory, 15, 784–798. doi:10.1080/09658210701654627
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robin, X., Turck, N., Hainard, A., Tiberti, N., Lisacek, F., Sanchez, J., & Müller, M. (2011). pROC: An open-source package for R and S+ to analyze and compare ROC curves. BMC Bioinformatics, 12, 77. doi:10.1186/1471-2105-12-77
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Searcy, J. H., & Bartlett, J. C. (1996). Inversion and processing of component and spatial-relational information in faces. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22, 904–915. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.22.4.904
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steblay, N. M., Dysart, J., Fulero, S., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (2001). Eyewitness accuracy rates in sequential and simultaneous lineup presentations: A meta-analytic comparison. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 459–473. doi:10.1023/A:1012888715007
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steblay, N. K., Dysart, J. E., & Wells, G. L. (2011). Seventy-two tests of the sequential lineup superiority effect: A meta-analysis and policy discussion. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 17(1), 99–139. doi:10.1037/a0021650
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tanaka, J. W., & Farah, M. J. (1993). Parts and wholes in face recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46, 225–245. doi:10.1080/14640749308401045
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thompson, P. (1980). Margaret Thatcher: A new illusion. Perception, 9, 483–484. doi:10.1068/p090483
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Valentine, T., & Heaton, P. (1999). An evaluation of the fairness of police line-ups and video identifications. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13(Special Issue), S59–S72. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199911)13:1+<S59::AID-ACP679>3.0.CO;2-Y
   Google Scholar
• Wells, G. L., Steblay, N. K., & Dysart, J. E. (2012). Eyewitness identification reforms: Are suggestiveness-induced hits and guesses true hits? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 264–271. doi:10.1177/1745691612443368
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wixted, J. T., & Mickes, L. (2012). The field of eyewitness memory should abandon “probative value” and embrace receiver operating characteristic analysis. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 275–278. doi:10.1177/1745691612442906
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wixted, J. T., & Mickes, L. (2014). A signal-detection-based diagnostic feature-detection model of eyewitness identification. Psychological Review, 121, 262–276. doi:10.1037/a0035940
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yin, R. K. (1969). Looking at upside-down faces. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81(1), 141–145. doi:10.1037/h0027474
   Google Scholar
• Young, A. W., Hellawell, D., & Hay, D. C. (1987). Configurational information in face perception. Perception, 16, 747–759. doi:10.1068/p160747
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar