ROC Analysis of the Verbal Overshadowing Effect: Testing the Effect of Verbalisation on Memory Sensitivity
ROC Analysis of the Verbal Overshadowing Effect: Testing the Effect of Verbalisation on Memory Sensitivity
复制标题
语言遮蔽效应的 ROC 分析：测试语言化对记忆敏感性的影响
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2015
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
H. Flowe
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
H. Smith;H. Flowe
摘要：本研究调查了记忆敏感性与识别标准在言语遮蔽效应 (VOE) 中的作用。使用接受者操作特征分析来分析阵容识别数据，以将言语对记忆敏感性的影响与标准放置分开。参与者观看了一段犯罪短片，描述了犯罪者的面部特征，然后尝试进行阵容识别。参与者之间的描述说明各不相同。有标准（免费报告）、强制（报告所有内容）和警告（报告准确信息）三种情况。对照参与者没有描述肇事者。与标准条件相比，对照组的记忆敏感性更高。警告条件下的记忆敏感性也比强制条件和标准条件下更高。尽管在强制条件下采用了更保守的阵容决策标准，但在强制条件和标准描述条件下，记忆敏感性没有差异。这些结果与描述的定性分析一起支持对 VOE 的基于检索和基于标准的解释。版权所有 © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd。犯罪发生后，证人可能会被问到有关犯罪者外貌的问题（TWGEE，1999）。这些描述可以让执法人员逮捕符合证人描述的嫌疑人，排除其他嫌疑人并构建公平的阵容。获得对犯罪者的详细而准确的口头描述对于确保定罪至关重要。一些心理学研究表明，在促使目击者描述犯罪者的过程中，警方可能会破坏阵容识别证据的诊断价值（例如 Schooler & Engstler-Schooler，1990）。描述肇事者的行为随后可能会降低目击者从队列中识别犯罪嫌疑人的可能性。言语遮蔽效应（VOE）是指言语描述损害后续识别性能的倾向。在 Schooler 和 Engstler-Schooler (1990) 的开创性研究中，参与者观看了一段 30 秒的抢劫视频，然后试图在 8 人目标在场的阵容中识别肇事者。在排队之前口头描述肇事者面孔的参与者的准确度明显低于没有这样做的参与者。这种效应已被复制（例如 Brown & LloydJones, 2003；Dodson, Johnson & Schooler, 1997；Fallshore & Schooler, 1995；Westerman & Larsen, 1997）。 Meissner 和 Brigham（2001）的荟萃分析表明，言语对面部识别的准确性有微小但显着的负面影响。参与者对目标呈现阵容不准确的可能性增加了 1.27 倍。然而，不同研究的影响程度和方向各不相同。早期研究发现，口头描述后阵容表现会受到约 50% 的干扰（Schooler & Engstler-Schooler，1990）。然而，第一次复制尝试检测到效果大小降低了 30%（Fallshore & Schooler，1995）。复制 VOE 的失败也有很多（例如 Clifford，2003 年；Memon & Bartlett，
Summary: This study investigated the role of memory sensitivity versus recognition criterion in the verbal overshadowing effect (VOE). Lineup recognition data were analysed using receiver operating characteristic analysis to separate the effects of verbalisation on memory sensitivity from criterion placement. Participants watched a short crime video, described the perpetrator’s facial features and then attempted a lineup identification. Description instructions were varied between participants. There was a standard (free report), forced (report everything) and warning (report accurate information) condition. Control participants did not describe the perpetrator. Memory sensitivity was greater in the control compared with the standard condition. Memory sensitivity was also greater in the warning condition than in the forced and standard conditions. Memory sensitivity did not differ across the forced and standard-description conditions, although a more conservative lineup decision standard was employed in the forced condition. These results, along with qualitative analyses of descriptions, support both retrieval-based and criterionbased explanations of the VOE. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Following a crime, witnesses are likely to be asked questions about the appearance of the perpetrator (TWGEE, 1999). These descriptions may allow law enforcement officers to apprehend suspects fitting witnesses’ descriptions, rule out other suspects and construct fair lineups. Obtaining a detailed and accurate verbal description of the perpetrator can be vital in securing a conviction. Some psychological research suggests that in prompting witnesses to describe a perpetrator, the police may be undermining the diagnostic value of lineup identification evidence (e.g. Schooler & Engstler-Schooler, 1990). The act of describing the perpetrator could subsequently make witnesses less likely to identify the guilty suspect from a lineup. The verbal overshadowing effect (VOE) refers to the tendency for verbal descriptions to impair subsequent recognition performance. In Schooler and Engstler-Schooler’s (1990) seminal study, participants watched a 30-second video of a robbery and then attempted to identify the perpetrator on an eight-person target-present lineup. Participants who verbally described the perpetrator’s face prior to the lineup were significantly less accurate than those who did not. The effect has been replicated (e.g. Brown & LloydJones, 2003; Dodson, Johnson & Schooler, 1997; Fallshore & Schooler, 1995; Westerman & Larsen, 1997). Meissner and Brigham’s (2001) meta-analysis indicated that verbalisation had a small but significant negative effect on face identification accuracy. Participants were 1.27 times more likely to be inaccurate on target-present lineups. However, the magnitude and direction of the effect vary across studies. Early studies uncovered lineup performance disruptions of around 50% following verbal descriptions (Schooler & Engstler-Schooler, 1990). However, the first replication attempt detected an effect size that was 30% lower (Fallshore & Schooler, 1995). There have also been numerous failures to replicate the VOE (e.g. Clifford, 2003; Memon & Bartlett,
感知专业知识的言语脆弱性。
DOI：
10.1037//0278-7393.21.6.1608
发表时间：
1995
期刊：
Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition
影响因子：
--
作者：
Fallshore,M;Schooler,JW
通讯作者：
Schooler,JW
言语掩盖效应：处理过程普遍转变的证据。
DOI：
--
发表时间：
1997
期刊：
The American journal of psychology.
影响因子：
--
作者：
Westerman,DL;Larsen,JD
通讯作者：
Larsen,JD