Alex Wooten
- Courses0
- Reviews0
- School: Texas A&M University
- Campus: Commerce
- Department: Psychology
- Email address: Join to see
- Phone: Join to see
-
Location:
Commerce, TX - Dates at Texas A&M University: -
- Office Hours: Join to see
Biography
Texas A&M University Commerce - Psychology
Experience
University of Alabama in Huntsville
Graduate Teaching Assistant
I was responsible for: substitute teaching for psychology professors when they were unable to do so, managing the research activity points, tutoring introductory psychology students, grading and proctoring exams.
Texas A&M University-Commerce
Graduate Teaching Assistant
I was responsible for teaching the four undergraduate statistics labs comprised of 60 - 70 students. I helped students work out statistics problems, graded weekly homework's and quizzes and held office hours to provide additional help to students.
Texas A&M University-Commerce
Graduate Assistant Researcher
I was closely involved in the research process, from data design to data collection to data analysis. In addition, I was responsible for absolving any issues with the ePrime software that we utilized to run experiments. While serving as in this role, I presented research at the annual Psychonomics Society conference and the annual AP-LS conference.
Texas A&M University-Commerce
APA Reviewer
Reviewing graduate level theses and dissertations for deviations
from APA formatting.Stephenson Cancer Center
Research Project Coordinator
Alex worked at Stephenson Cancer Center as a Research Project Coordinator
Education
University of Alabama in Huntsville
Master of Arts (MA)
Experimental Psychology
University of Alabama in Huntsville
Graduate Teaching Assistant
I was responsible for: substitute teaching for psychology professors when they were unable to do so, managing the research activity points, tutoring introductory psychology students, grading and proctoring exams.University of Oklahoma
Bachelor of Arts (BA)
Psychology
Texas A&M University-Commerce
Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)
Cognitive Psychology
Texas A&M University-Commerce
Graduate Teaching Assistant
I was responsible for teaching the four undergraduate statistics labs comprised of 60 - 70 students. I helped students work out statistics problems, graded weekly homework's and quizzes and held office hours to provide additional help to students.Texas A&M University-Commerce
Graduate Assistant Researcher
I was closely involved in the research process, from data design to data collection to data analysis. In addition, I was responsible for absolving any issues with the ePrime software that we utilized to run experiments. While serving as in this role, I presented research at the annual Psychonomics Society conference and the annual AP-LS conference.Texas A&M University-Commerce
APA Reviewer
Reviewing graduate level theses and dissertations for deviations from APA formatting.
Publications
When Snitches Corroborate: Effects of Post-identification Feedback from a Potentially Compromised Source
Psychiatry Psychology and Law
Feedback provided to eyewitnesses can influence memory for how confident their previous line-up selections were. Witnesses given confirming feedback remember being more confident than witnesses who are told their selection was incorrect regardless of their accuracy.This can have a powerful impact on judges and juries. In the current paper, we examine the effect of feedback from a snitch. This manipulation often occurs in real cases, despite that fact that snitches could have something to gain from providing information to police. Our participants witnessed a staged crime and then identified the perpetrator from a target-absent line-up. Two days later, participants were provided with feedback and were probed for confidence. Results show that confirming feedback from a snitch has the same effect as a confession made by the actual suspect, and disconfirming feedback reduces confidence. Implications and relation to the extant literature on eyewitness confidence are discussed.
When Snitches Corroborate: Effects of Post-identification Feedback from a Potentially Compromised Source
Psychiatry Psychology and Law
Feedback provided to eyewitnesses can influence memory for how confident their previous line-up selections were. Witnesses given confirming feedback remember being more confident than witnesses who are told their selection was incorrect regardless of their accuracy.This can have a powerful impact on judges and juries. In the current paper, we examine the effect of feedback from a snitch. This manipulation often occurs in real cases, despite that fact that snitches could have something to gain from providing information to police. Our participants witnessed a staged crime and then identified the perpetrator from a target-absent line-up. Two days later, participants were provided with feedback and were probed for confidence. Results show that confirming feedback from a snitch has the same effect as a confession made by the actual suspect, and disconfirming feedback reduces confidence. Implications and relation to the extant literature on eyewitness confidence are discussed.
Showups versus lineups: An evaluation using ROC analysis
journal of applied research in memory and cognition
Showups (a one-person identification) were compared to both simultaneous and sequential lineups that varied in lineup fairness and the position of the suspect in the lineup. We reanalyzed data from a study by Gronlund, Carlson, Dailey, and Goodsell (2009), which included simultaneous and sequential lineups, and using the same stimuli and procedures, collected new data using showup identifications. Performance was compared using ROC analysis, which is superior to traditional measures such as correct and false identification rates, and probative value measures. ROC analysis showed that simultaneous lineups consistently produced more accurate identification evidence than showups, but sequential lineups were sometimes no more accurate than showups, and were never more accurate than simultaneous lineups. These results supported prior suppositions regarding the suggestiveness of showups, revealed a misconception about the superiority of sequential lineups, and demonstrated why eyewitness identification procedures need to be evaluated using ROC analyses.
When Snitches Corroborate: Effects of Post-identification Feedback from a Potentially Compromised Source
Psychiatry Psychology and Law
Feedback provided to eyewitnesses can influence memory for how confident their previous line-up selections were. Witnesses given confirming feedback remember being more confident than witnesses who are told their selection was incorrect regardless of their accuracy.This can have a powerful impact on judges and juries. In the current paper, we examine the effect of feedback from a snitch. This manipulation often occurs in real cases, despite that fact that snitches could have something to gain from providing information to police. Our participants witnessed a staged crime and then identified the perpetrator from a target-absent line-up. Two days later, participants were provided with feedback and were probed for confidence. Results show that confirming feedback from a snitch has the same effect as a confession made by the actual suspect, and disconfirming feedback reduces confidence. Implications and relation to the extant literature on eyewitness confidence are discussed.
Showups versus lineups: An evaluation using ROC analysis
journal of applied research in memory and cognition
Showups (a one-person identification) were compared to both simultaneous and sequential lineups that varied in lineup fairness and the position of the suspect in the lineup. We reanalyzed data from a study by Gronlund, Carlson, Dailey, and Goodsell (2009), which included simultaneous and sequential lineups, and using the same stimuli and procedures, collected new data using showup identifications. Performance was compared using ROC analysis, which is superior to traditional measures such as correct and false identification rates, and probative value measures. ROC analysis showed that simultaneous lineups consistently produced more accurate identification evidence than showups, but sequential lineups were sometimes no more accurate than showups, and were never more accurate than simultaneous lineups. These results supported prior suppositions regarding the suggestiveness of showups, revealed a misconception about the superiority of sequential lineups, and demonstrated why eyewitness identification procedures need to be evaluated using ROC analyses.
Effect of Retention Interval on Showup and Lineup Performance
Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition
Showups–when a single suspect is presented to an eyewitness–are thought to be a more suggestive procedure than traditional lineups by the U.S. Supreme Court and social science researchers. The present experiment examined the impact of retention interval on showup identifications, because immediate showups might be no worse than, and perhaps even better than, a lineup conducted after a delay. Participants (N = 1486) viewed a mock-crime video and then were presented with a showup or a simultaneous lineup, either immediately or a 48-hour delay. ROC (Receiver Operating Characteristic) analyses revealed that a showup never resulted in better identification accuracy than a lineup. We conclude with a discussion of whether showups should ever be used.
When Snitches Corroborate: Effects of Post-identification Feedback from a Potentially Compromised Source
Psychiatry Psychology and Law
Feedback provided to eyewitnesses can influence memory for how confident their previous line-up selections were. Witnesses given confirming feedback remember being more confident than witnesses who are told their selection was incorrect regardless of their accuracy.This can have a powerful impact on judges and juries. In the current paper, we examine the effect of feedback from a snitch. This manipulation often occurs in real cases, despite that fact that snitches could have something to gain from providing information to police. Our participants witnessed a staged crime and then identified the perpetrator from a target-absent line-up. Two days later, participants were provided with feedback and were probed for confidence. Results show that confirming feedback from a snitch has the same effect as a confession made by the actual suspect, and disconfirming feedback reduces confidence. Implications and relation to the extant literature on eyewitness confidence are discussed.
Showups versus lineups: An evaluation using ROC analysis
journal of applied research in memory and cognition
Showups (a one-person identification) were compared to both simultaneous and sequential lineups that varied in lineup fairness and the position of the suspect in the lineup. We reanalyzed data from a study by Gronlund, Carlson, Dailey, and Goodsell (2009), which included simultaneous and sequential lineups, and using the same stimuli and procedures, collected new data using showup identifications. Performance was compared using ROC analysis, which is superior to traditional measures such as correct and false identification rates, and probative value measures. ROC analysis showed that simultaneous lineups consistently produced more accurate identification evidence than showups, but sequential lineups were sometimes no more accurate than showups, and were never more accurate than simultaneous lineups. These results supported prior suppositions regarding the suggestiveness of showups, revealed a misconception about the superiority of sequential lineups, and demonstrated why eyewitness identification procedures need to be evaluated using ROC analyses.
Effect of Retention Interval on Showup and Lineup Performance
Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition
Showups–when a single suspect is presented to an eyewitness–are thought to be a more suggestive procedure than traditional lineups by the U.S. Supreme Court and social science researchers. The present experiment examined the impact of retention interval on showup identifications, because immediate showups might be no worse than, and perhaps even better than, a lineup conducted after a delay. Participants (N = 1486) viewed a mock-crime video and then were presented with a showup or a simultaneous lineup, either immediately or a 48-hour delay. ROC (Receiver Operating Characteristic) analyses revealed that a showup never resulted in better identification accuracy than a lineup. We conclude with a discussion of whether showups should ever be used.
Of Course Memory Is Constructive A Review of Human Memory: A Constructivist View
PsycCRITIQUES
Reviews the book, Human Memory: A Constructivist View by Mary B. Howes and Geoffrey O'Shea (see record 2014-10215-000). These authors, although lacking the credentials to do so (on the basis of extremely limited empirical research background), attempt to summarize the historical and current state of the human memory literature, with a mind toward contrasting empiricism (the belief that encoded memories represent the real world very well, with minimal interaction with knowledge structures) and constructivism (the belief that throughout encoding and retrieval processing, memories are thoroughly constructed and reconstructed on the basis of schematic knowledge). This goal is pursued primarily by means of anecdotes from Mary B. Howe’s personal memories. Although these are useful to a certain extent as examples of memory concepts (e.g., source misattribution), the authors go far beyond to base entire arguments on such anecdotes. They purport to present a current analysis of the cognitive literature to support their claim that constructivism is the best lens through which to view memory but instead describe mostly outdated research as a kind of historical account of the conflict between the two theories. The intended audience for the book is advanced undergraduates and graduate students of cognitive psychology, as well as memory experts, but all of these groups would likely understand the current nature of the field much better than what is represented here. This book is best intended for laypeople or perhaps undergraduates interested in the history of memory theory, but it should not be presented as an evaluation of current thinking in the field. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2014 APA, all rights reserved)