MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Biased Lineup Instructions: Examining the Effect of Pressure on Children's and Adults' Eyewitness Identification Accuracy<sup>1</sup>

2006· article· en· W2000676863 on OpenAlexaff
Joanna Pozzulo, Julie Dempsey

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Social Psychology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory Processes and Influences
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyEyewitness identificationFalse positive paradoxSocial psychologyIdentification (biology)Developmental psychologyStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two experiments were conducted to examine the effects of pressure on lineup decisions across child and adult eyewitnesses. In both experiments, participants were exposed to a target via videotape and then presented with a 6‐person, target‐absent lineup. Pressure was manipulated via lineup instructions (neutral vs. biased instructions). With neutral lineup instructions, children had a higher false‐positive rate than did adults. With biased lineup instructions, children's patterns of false‐positive responding paralleled that of adults; that is, an increase in false positives occurred. These results suggest that social pressure may not be the only factor driving children's higher false‐positive responding, compared to adults. Potential factors that may be affecting children's lineup decision processes are discussed.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.586
Threshold uncertainty score0.352

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.293 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations26
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied Social PsychologySame topicMemory Processes and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207