decision process. There may be other factors that
influence the extent to which popout is reported retro-
spectively, such as the typicality (in comparison with
the broader population) of the face, the size of the
array, and the location of the target in the array.
Despite these problems with validating the popout
phenomenon, it is at least not inconsistent with data
from studies in which the time taken to make the iden-
tification decision, identification response latency, has
been examined. These studies show that accurate
identification responses are, on average, significantly
faster than inaccurate responses. Furthermore, there is
at least some evidence that participants who endorsed
more items suggestive of automatic processing tended
to be those who made faster identifications, whereas
those who endorsed more deliberative processing
items tended to be slower.
The popout effect has been distinguished from
another type of decision process, an absolute decision
strategy, on the ground that an absolute decision strat-
egy does not predict shorter decision latencies
whereas popout does. The reason for shorter decision
latencies when popout occurs is that the examination
of the lineup may cease after the face has popped out
of the array. In contrast, an absolute decision strategy
is characterized by witnesses comparing the members
of the lineup with their memory of the perpetrator,
with this occurring for each member of a simultane-
ous lineup array. Other behavioral data, such as
eye movement recordings, have not, as yet, been
investigated to provide converging evidence for the
popout effect, but they could help validate the effect.
If popout occurs, it would be expected that witnesses
would engage in very little scanning of the members
of the lineup, fixating quickly on the lineup member
that pops out. This eye movement pattern should dif-
fer from both an absolute judgment strategy, where
each lineup member should be fixated but overt com-
parisons between lineup members should not be
detected, and a relative judgment strategy, where eye
movements should indicate comparisons between the
various lineup members.
It is worth noting that basic research in the area of
visual search points to a phenomenon that appears to
parallel the popout experience attributed to some wit-
nesses when viewing a photo array. The popout effect
in the visual search paradigm appears to derive from
an early, “preattentive” registration of the key features
of a stimulus during parallel processing of the full
stimulus array, with this leading to rapid termination
of the search of the stimulus array.In sum, the popout effect has been argued to occur
on the basis of witnesses’ subjective reports of the
decision strategy used to make an identification deci-
sion and the time taken to make the decision. It
is important because it could potentially be helpful
in distinguishing accurate from inaccurate identifica-
tion decisions. However, the reliance on retrospective
reports to demonstrate the phenomenon is problem-
atic, with future research needing to be directed at
identifying behavioral measures of popout.Carolyn Semmler and Neil BrewerSee alsoResponse Latency in Eyewitness IdentificationFurther Readings
Brewer, N., Gordon, M., & Bond, N. (2000). Effect of
photoarray exposure duration on eyewitness identification
accuracy and processing strategy. Psychology, Crime
& Law, 6,21–32.
Dunning, D., & Stern, L. B. (1994). Distinguishing accurate
from inaccurate eyewitness identifications via inquiries
about decision processes. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 67,818–835.
Ross, D. F., Rapus Benton, T., McDonnell, S., Metzger, R.,
& Silver, C. (2007). When accurate and inaccurate
eyewitnesses look the same: A limitation of the “pop-out”
effect and the 10- to 12-second rule.Applied Cognitive
Psychology, 21(5), 677–690.
Weber, N., Brewer, N., Wells, G. L., Semmler, C., & Keast,
A. (2004). Eyewitness identification accuracy and
response latency: The unruly 10–12 second rule. Journal
of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 10,139–147.
Wells, G. L., Olson, E. A., & Charman, S. D. (2003).
Distorted retrospective eyewitness reports as functions of
feedback and delay. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Applied, 9,42–52.PORNOGRAPHY,
EFFECTS OFEXPOSURE TO
For as long as people have been able to draw and
write, they have created pornography. Greek vases
and Roman brothels contain ancient, sexually explicit
images. Modern technologies for delivering sexually
explicit images, such as the Internet, have made
pornography ubiquitous. The affordability, accessibil-
ity, and anonymity of Internet pornography have alsoPornography, Effects of Exposure to——— 601P-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:43 PM Page 601