This article investigated the role of the recognition criterion in the verbal overshadowing effect (VOE). In 3 experiments, people witnessed an event, verbally described a perpetrator, and then attempted identification. The authors found in Experiment 1, which included a “not present” response option and both perpetrator-present (PP) and perpetrator-absent (PA) lineups, an increased reluctance to identify a person from both lineup types after verbalization. Experiment 2 incorporated a forced-choice procedure, and the authors found no effect of verbalization on identification performance. Experiment 3 replicated the essential aspects of these results. Consequently, the VOE may reflect a change in recognition criterion rather than a changed processing style or alteration of the underlying memory trace. This conclusion was confirmed by computational modeling of the data. The veracity of eyewitness memory is of obvious importance, and the search for ways in which eyewitness accuracy can be improved has focused on the conditions at retrieval, which are under the control of police and other practitioners (Fisher & Geiselman, 1992; Gwyer & Clifford, 1997; Kebbell, Milne, & Wagstaff, 1999; Krafka & Penrod, 1985). A common task of eyewitnesses to crimes is to generate a verbal description of the perpetrator, which in turn may lead to apprehension of a suspect for subsequent identification from a lineup or photospread. Although providing a description is standard police procedure, recent research has suggested that this process can adversely affect subsequent identification performance. Schooler and Engstler-Schooler (1990) first reported an adverse side effect of verbal descriptions. Witnesses viewed a staged crime and then either provided a verbal description of the perpetrator (verbalization condition) or completed an irrelevant filler task (control condition). Following this manipulation, witnesses attempted to identify the perpetrator from a photospread. Witnesses who described the perpetrator were found to make significantly fewer correct identifications than control participants. Schooler and Engstler-Schooler termed the negative influence of verbalization on identification the verbal overshadowing effect (VOE). The initial studies by Schooler and Engstler-Schooler (1990) were followed by much research that has replicated the VOE numerous times (e.g., Dodson, Johnson, & Schooler, 1997; Fallshore & Schooler, 1995; Ryan & Schooler, 1998; Schooler, Ryan, & Reder, 1996) and across several domains (e.g., basic color memory; Brandimonte, Schooler, & Gabbino, 1997; wine identification, Melcher & Schooler, 1996; and insight problem solving, Schooler, Ohlsson, & Brooks, 1993). Although the effect has on occasion proved difficult to replicate, a meta-analysis of most published and unpublished VOE research by Meissner and Brigham (2001) confirmed the pervasive presence of a small but significant negative effect of verbalization on identification accuracy. This article investigated the processes underlying the VOE. We first identified and compared the two leading explanations for the effect. This comparison revealed two unresolved empirical issues that, in turn, suggested an alternative explanation for the VOE based on a shift in people’s recognition criterion; that is, an increased reluctance to choose someone from the lineup. This criterion explanation is explored in three experiments that manipulated (a) whether witnesses were able to respond “not present” to a lineup and (b) whether the perpetrator was present. When the “not present” option was available (Experiments 1 and 3), witnesses were less likely to choose someone from a lineup after verbalization, irrespective of whether the perpetrator was present. By contrast, when participants were forced to select someone (Experiments 2 and 3), accuracy of identification was unaffected by verbalization. Taken together, the experiments support the idea that verbalization leads witnesses to adopt a more stringent recognition criterion, thus reducing identification rates. Further support for this conclusion is provided by the application of a computational model, WITNESS (Clark, 2003). The model handled the results from all experiments and showed that the VOE, when present, could be captured by a shift in recognition criterion. A competing implementation that modeled the VOE by degrading the memory trace failed to accommodate the data.