TY - JOUR
T1 - Filler-siphoning theory does not predict the effect of lineup fairness on the ability to discriminate innocent from guilty suspects:
T2 - reply to Smith, Wells, Smalarz, and Lampinen (2018)
AU - Colloff, Melissa F.
AU - Wade, Kimberley A.
AU - Strange, Deryn
AU - Wixted, John T.
PY - 2018/9/1
Y1 - 2018/9/1
N2 - Smith, Wells, Smalarz, and Lampinen (2018) claim that we (Colloff, Wade, & Strange, 2016) were wrong to conclude that fair lineups enhanced people’s ability to discriminate between innocent and guilty suspects compared to unfair lineups. They argue our results reflect differential-filler-siphoning, not diagnostic-feature-detection. But a manipulation that decreases identifications of innocent suspects more than guilty suspects (i.e., that increases filler-siphoning or conservative responding) does not necessarily increase people’s ability to discriminate between innocent and guilty suspects. Unlike diagnostic-feature-detection, filler-siphoning does not make a prediction about people’s ability to discriminate between innocent and guilty suspects. Moreover, we replicated Colloff et al.’s results in the absence of filler-siphoning (N=2,078). Finally, a model is needed to measure ability to discriminate between innocent and guilty suspects. Smith et al.’s model-based analysis contained several errors. Correcting those errors shows that our model was not faulty, and Smith et al.’s model supports our original conclusions.
AB - Smith, Wells, Smalarz, and Lampinen (2018) claim that we (Colloff, Wade, & Strange, 2016) were wrong to conclude that fair lineups enhanced people’s ability to discriminate between innocent and guilty suspects compared to unfair lineups. They argue our results reflect differential-filler-siphoning, not diagnostic-feature-detection. But a manipulation that decreases identifications of innocent suspects more than guilty suspects (i.e., that increases filler-siphoning or conservative responding) does not necessarily increase people’s ability to discriminate between innocent and guilty suspects. Unlike diagnostic-feature-detection, filler-siphoning does not make a prediction about people’s ability to discriminate between innocent and guilty suspects. Moreover, we replicated Colloff et al.’s results in the absence of filler-siphoning (N=2,078). Finally, a model is needed to measure ability to discriminate between innocent and guilty suspects. Smith et al.’s model-based analysis contained several errors. Correcting those errors shows that our model was not faulty, and Smith et al.’s model supports our original conclusions.
KW - signal detection theory (SDT)
KW - diagnostic-feature-detection
KW - eyewitness identification
KW - filler siphoning
KW - decision-making
U2 - 10.1177/0956797618786459
DO - 10.1177/0956797618786459
M3 - Article
C2 - 30074863
SN - 0956-7976
VL - 29
SP - 1552
EP - 1557
JO - Psychological Science
JF - Psychological Science
IS - 9
ER -