Find Paper, Faster
Example:10.1021/acsami.1c06204 or Chem. Rev., 2007, 107, 2411-2502
Retraction of Mansour et al. (2012).
Law and Human Behavior  (IF3.795),  Pub Date : 2020-12-01, DOI: 10.1037/lhb0000435

Reports the retraction of "Impact of disguise on identification decisions and confidence with simultaneous and sequential lineups" by Jamal K. Mansour, Jennifer L. Beaudry, Michelle I. Bertrand, Natalie Kalmet, Elisabeth I. Melsom and Roderick C. L. Lindsay (Law and Human Behavior, 2012[Dec], Vol 36[6], 513-526). The article reported two separate experiments and included a re-analysis of the data from both experiments combined. The authors recently discovered data entry and transformation errors that affected the descriptive and inferential results in both experiments and, to a small extent, the conclusions drawn following each individual experiment. The errors did not affect the overall conclusions described in the General Discussion section for both experiments beginning on p. 527. All of the authors joined in the request for this retraction. They accept and share responsibility for not identifying these errors prior to publication. The authors have agreed to correct the errors and we have accepted the revised manuscript, and it now published: "Impact of Disguise on Identification Decisions and Confidence With Simultaneous and Sequential Lineups" by Jamal K. Mansour, Jennifer L. Beaudry, Michelle I. Bertrand, Natalie Kalmet, Elisabeth I. Melsom, and Roderick C. L. Lindsay (Law and Human Behavior, 2020, Vol. 44, No. 6, 502-515. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2012-04571-001.) Prior research indicates that disguise negatively affects lineup identifications, but the mechanisms by which disguise works have not been explored, and different disguises have not been compared. In two experiments (Ns = 87 and 91) we manipulated degree of coverage by two different types of disguise: a stocking mask or sunglasses and toque (i.e., knitted hat). Participants viewed mock-crime videos followed by simultaneous or sequential lineups. Disguise and lineup type did not interact. In support of the view that disguise prevents encoding, identification accuracy generally decreased with degree of disguise. For the stocking disguise, however, full and 2/3 coverage led to approximately the same rate of correct identifications-which suggests that disrupting encoding of specific features may be as detrimental as disrupting a whole face. Accuracy was most affected by sunglasses and we discuss the role metacognitions may have played. Lineup selections decreased more slowly than accuracy as coverage by disguise increased, indicating witnesses are insensitive to the effect of encoding conditions on accuracy. We also explored the impact of disguise and lineup type on witnesses' confidence in their lineup decisions, though the results were not straightforward. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).