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. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000427). (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).

中文翻译：

---

曼苏尔等人的撤稿。（2012）。

报告了Jamal K. Mansour，Jennifer L. Beaudry，Michelle I. Bertrand，Natalie Kalmet，Elisabeth I. Melsom和Roderick CL Lindsay（法律和人类杂志）撤回的“伪装对身份识别决策的影响以及同时和顺序的阵容”行为，2012年[Dec]，第36卷[6]，513-526）。该文章报告了两个单独的实验，并包括对两个实验合并后的数据的重新分析。作者最近发现数据输入和转换错误影响了两个实验中的描述性和推论性结果，并在一定程度上影响了每个实验后得出的结论。对于从p开始的两个实验，该错误均未影响“一般讨论”部分中描述的总体结论。527。所有作者都要求撤回。他们接受并承担在发布之前不识别这些错误的责任。作者已同意纠正错误，并且我们接受了经修订的手稿，并且该书现在出版：Jamal K. Mansour，Jennifer L. Beaudry，Michelle I撰写的“伪装对识别决策和自信心的影响”。 Bertrand，Natalie Kalmet，Elisabeth I.Melsom和Roderick CL Lindsay（法律与人类行为，2020年，第44卷，第6期，502-515.https：//doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000427）。（原始文章的以下摘要出现在记录2012-04571-001中。）先前的研究表明，伪装对阵容标识有负面影响，但尚未探索伪装工作的机制，并且没有比较不同的伪装。在两个实验中（Ns分别为87和91），我们通过两种不同类型的伪装来操纵覆盖率：面罩或太阳镜和转矩帽（即针织帽）。参与者观看了模拟犯罪视频，然后依次观看或依次观看了阵容。伪装和阵容类型没有互动。为了支持伪装阻止编码的观点，识别准确性通常随伪装程度而降低。但是，对于库存伪装，完整覆盖率和2/3覆盖率导致大约相同的正确识别率，这表明破坏特定特征的编码可能与破坏整个面孔一样有害。准确性受太阳镜的影响最大，我们讨论了元认知可能发挥的作用。由于伪装覆盖率的增加，阵容选择的下降速度要比准确性下降的速度慢，这表明证人对编码条件对准确性的影响不敏感。我们也探讨了变相和阵容类型对证人对其阵容决定的信心的影响，尽管结果并不简单。（PsycInfo数据库记录（c）2021 APA，保留所有权利）。