Registered Replication Report: Schooler and Engstler-Schooler (1990) (RRR1 & RRR2)
Alogna, Zwaan et al. (2014) Perspectives on Psychological Science 10.1177/1745691614545653
Replications 55 verbal overshadowing effect
HTML

Key Figures/Forest plots

Replications 23 (Details of all 55 replications presented in replication table below.)

Original Study & Replications Effect size [95% CI]
Method #1 (RRR2): Verbal description (bank robber) impairs identification of perpetrator (lineup task; for Method #2 [RRR1 replications] see table below)
Schooler & Engstler-Schooler (1990) Study 1
Poirer et al. (2014)
Delvenne et al. (2014)
Birt & Aucoin (2014)
Susa et al. (2014)
Carlson et al. (2014)
Musselman & Colarusso (2014)
Echterhoff & Kopietz (2014)
Mammarella et al. (2014)
Dellapaolera & Bornstein (2014)
Mitchell & Petro (2014)
Ulatowska & Cislak (2014)
Wade et al. (2014)
Birch (2014)
McCoy & Rancourt (2014)
Greenberg et al. (2014)
Alogna et al. (2014)
Michael et al. (2014, mTurk)
Koch et al. (2014)
Thompson (2014)
Rubinova et al. (2014)
Brandimonte (2014)
Eggleston et al. (2014)
Kehn et al. (2014)
Current meta-analytic estimate of Method #1 replications:
[Underlying data (CSV) & R-code]

Summary: The verbal overshadowing effect currently appears to be replicable; verbally describing a robber after a 20-minute delay decreased correct identification rate in a lineup by 16% (from 54% [control] to 38% [verbal]; meta-analytic estimate = -16% [+/-.04], equivalent to r = .17). Still in question, however, is the validity and generalizability of the effect, hence it's still premature for public policy to be informed by verbal overshadowing evidence. Validity-wise, it's unclear whether verbal overshadowing is driven by a more conservative judgmental response bias process or driven by a reduced memory discriminability process because no "suspect-absent" lineups were used. This is important to clarify because it directly influences how eye-witness testimony should be treated (e.g., if verbal overshadowing is primarily driven by a more conservative response bias process, identifications made after a verbal descriptions should actually be given *more* [rather than less] weight, see Mickes & Wixted, 2015). Generalizability-wise, in a slight variant of RRR2 (i.e., RRR1), a much smaller overall verbal deficit of -4% [+/-.03] emerged, when the lineup identification occured 20 minutes after verbal description (which occurred immediately after seeing robbery). Future research needs to determine the size of verbal overshadowing when there's a delay between crime and verbal description and before lineup identification, which better reflect real-world conditions.



Replication Details

Replications 55

Related Articles