This article compares different accounts of how sequential lineups and simultaneous lineups differ from one another. According to Wells and colleagues, sequential lineups encourage absolute decision strategies, whereas simultaneous lineups encourage relative decision strategies. According to Ebbesen and Flowe, sequential lineups encourage a stricter response criterion than simultaneous lineups. In a previous paper Gronlund compared these two accounts by using a transfer appropriate processing approach. Subjects studied heights of individuals either using an absolute manner or relative manner. In the absolute study condition, the man’s height was studied by looking at him next to a ruler and hearing how tall he was. In the relative study condition, the man was standing next to a woman, but not given detailed height information. If simultaneous lineups engage relative judgment strategies, then people tested in that manner should do better when they studied the man’s height in the relative manner. If sequential lineups engage absolute judgment strategies, then people tested in that manner should do better when they studied the man’s height in an absolute manner. The results matched the transfer appropriate processing predictions and thus supported the account provided by Wells and colleagues.
In the present article Gronlund attempted to model his prior data using Estes Perturbation model, and then some variants of that model. Estes model claims that every time a memory representation is activated, there is some probability q that it will be distorted by one increment and a probability of (1- q) that it will remain unchanged. Across time, the opportunity for these perturbations increases and this can be modeled by assuming that the probability of perturbation occurs every processing cycle, and so with the passage of time, the probability of perturbation increases. Fits of this model did relatively well in accounting for the overall shape of Gronlund’s data (See Figures 1 and 2). This was particularly true in the absolute encoding condition. The model did less well in the relative encoding condition.
Gronlund considered two problems with the relative judgment data. First, it was possible that the two shortest heights and two tallest heights in the lineups were not distinguishable leading to an encoding confusion. Second, it was possible that in the relative encoding condition, the condition where the man’s height equaled the woman’s height was especially distinctive. To deal with the encoding confusion problem, Gronlund added a parameter to the model e that indicated the probability that the two tallest and shortest heights were indistinguishable. To deal with the distinctiveness issue, an additional parameter was added that indicated that probability that the representation was encoded perfectly into memory. Both of these changes improved the fits to the data.
Gronlund’s model SUSPECTS adds a recollection component and argues that sequential lineups lead to more recollection. He argues that recollection requires more mental resources than does familiarity and that sequential lineups are less resource demanding allowing more recollection to occur.
Important Legal
Disclaimer: The preceding are articles we read together in the Lampinen Lab Fall 2005 false memory reading group. By
clicking on the button next to the article you can see the summary of that
article. The summary was prepared by the student presenting that article and it
is of course the case that the views expressed in the summary do not
necessarily represent the views of the reading group as a whole, Dr. Lampinen, the Lampinen Lab,
Hugo's, the University of Arkansas, the Razorback Football or Basketball teams
(although we're not sure about cross country), people living down the street
from us, Bob Dylan, Jack Fate, our extended families, or anyone else for that
matter except for the student who wrote the summary (and they don't necessarily
believe what they wrote either).