The Effect of Retention Interval on the Confidence–Accuracy Relationship for Eyewitness Identification
Law Hum Behav (2010) 34:337–347 DOI 10.1007/s10979-009-9192-x
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
The Effect of Retention Interval on the Confidence–Accuracy Relationship for Eyewitness Identification
James Sauer Æ Neil Brewer Æ Tick Zweck Æ Nathan Weber
Published online: 22 July 2009
Ó American Psychology-Law Society/Division 41 of the American Psychological Association 2009
Abstract Recent research using a calibration approach indicates that eyewitness confidence assessments obtained immediately after a positive identification decision provide a useful guide as to the likely accuracy of the identification. This study extended research on the boundary conditions of the confidence–accuracy (CA) relationship by varying the retention interval between encoding and identification test. Participants (N = 1,063) viewed one of five different tar- gets in a community setting and attempted an identification from an 8-person target-present or -absent lineup either immediately or several weeks later. Compared to the immediate condition, the delay condition produced greater overconfidence and lower diagnosticity. However, for choosers at both retention intervals there was a meaningful CA relationship and diagnosticity was much stronger at high than low confidence levels.
Keywords Eyewitness identification Confidence–accuracy Retention interval Calibration
Criminal justice systems often use eyewitness identifica- tion evidence when assessing the likely guilt of a suspect or defendant. Yet, the likelihood of eyewitness identification error is well documented by laboratory- and field-based research demonstrating that, when presented with a lineup
J. Sauer N. Brewer (&) T. Zweck N. Weber
School of Psychology, Flinders University, GPO Box 2100, Adelaide, SA 5001, Australia e-mail: neil.brewer@flinders.edu.au
Present Address:
J. Sauer
Department of Psychology, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK and asked to make an identification decision, witnesses sometimes (a) misidentify
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
The Effect of Retention Interval on the Confidence–Accuracy Relationship for Eyewitness Identification
James Sauer Æ Neil Brewer Æ Tick Zweck Æ Nathan Weber
Published online: 22 July 2009
Ó American Psychology-Law Society/Division 41 of the American Psychological Association 2009
Abstract Recent research using a calibration approach indicates that eyewitness confidence assessments obtained immediately after a positive identification decision provide a useful guide as to the likely accuracy of the identification. This study extended research on the boundary conditions of the confidence–accuracy (CA) relationship by varying the retention interval between encoding and identification test. Participants (N = 1,063) viewed one of five different tar- gets in a community setting and attempted an identification from an 8-person target-present or -absent lineup either immediately or several weeks later. Compared to the immediate condition, the delay condition produced greater overconfidence and lower diagnosticity. However, for choosers at both retention intervals there was a meaningful CA relationship and diagnosticity was much stronger at high than low confidence levels.
Keywords Eyewitness identification Confidence–accuracy Retention interval Calibration
Criminal justice systems often use eyewitness identifica- tion evidence when assessing the likely guilt of a suspect or defendant. Yet, the likelihood of eyewitness identification error is well documented by laboratory- and field-based research demonstrating that, when presented with a lineup
J. Sauer N. Brewer (&) T. Zweck N. Weber
School of Psychology, Flinders University, GPO Box 2100, Adelaide, SA 5001, Australia e-mail: neil.brewer@flinders.edu.au
Present Address:
J. Sauer
Department of Psychology, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK and asked to make an identification decision, witnesses sometimes (a) misidentify
References: Bothwell, R. K., Deffenbacher, K. A., & Brigham, J. C. (1987). Correlations of eyewitness accuracy and confidence: Optimality hypothesis revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 691– 695. Bradfield, A. L., & Wells, G. L. (2000). The perceived validity of eyewitness identification testimony: A test of the five Biggers criteria. Law & Human Behavior, 24, 581–594. Bradfield, A. L., Wells, G. L., & Olson, E. A. (2002). The damaging effect of confirming feedback on the relation between eyewitness certainty and identification accuracy. Journal of Applied Psy- chology, 87, 112–120. Brewer, N. (2006). Uses and abuses of eyewitness identification confidence. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 11, 3–23. Brewer, N., & Burke, A. (2002). Effects of testimonial inconsistencies and eyewitness confidence on mock-juror judgements. Law & Human Behavior, 26, 353–364. Brewer, N., Keast, A., & Rishworth, A. (2002). The confidence- accuracy relationship in eyewitness identification: The effects of reflection and disconfirmation on correlation and calibration. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 8, 44–56. Brewer, N., & Wells, G. L. (2006). The confidence-accuracy relationship in eyewitness identification: Effects of lineup instructions, functional size and target-absent base rates. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 12, 11–30. Bruck, M., & Poole, D. A. (2002). Introduction to the special issue on forensic developmental psychology. Developmental Review, 22, 331–333. Busey, T. A., Tunnicliff, J., Loftus, G. R., & Loftus, E. F. (2000). Accounts of the confidence-accuracy relation in recognition memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7, 26–48. Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Stuve, T. E. (1988). Jury decision making in eyewitness identification cases (2008). Forgetting the once-seen face: Estimating the strength of an eyewitness’s memory representation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 14, 139–150. Deffenbacher, K. A., & Loftus, E. F. (1982). Do jurors share a common understanding concerning eyewitness behavior? Law & Human Behavior, 6, 15–30. Fleet, M. L., Brigham, J. C., & Bothwell, R. K. (1987). The confidence- accuracy relationship: The effects of confidence-accuracy and choosing. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 17, 171–187. Green, D. M., & Swets, J. A. (1966). Signal detection theory and psychophysics. New York: Wiley. Innocence Project. (2009). Innocence project. Retrieved March 15, 2009, from http://www.innocenceproject.org/about/index.php. Kassin, S. M. (1985). Eyewitness identification: Retrospective self- awareness and the accuracy-confidence manipulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 878–893. Kassin, S. M., Rigby, S., & Castillo, S. R. (1991). The accuracy- confidence correlation in eyewitness testimony: Limits and extensions of the retrospective self-awareness effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 698–707. Koriat, A., Lichtenstein, S., & Fischhoff, B. (1980). Reasons for confidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learn- ing & Memory, 6, 107–118. Lindsay, D. S., Nilsen, E., & Read, J. D. (2000). Witnessing-condition heterogeneity and witnesses’ versus investigators’ confidence in the accuracy of witnesses’ identification decisions. Law & Human Behavior, 24, 685–697. Lindsay, D. S., Read, J. D., & Sharma, K. (1998). Accuracy and confidence in person identification: The relationship is strong when witnessing conditions vary widely. Psychological Science, 9, 215–218. Lindsay, R. C. L., Wells, G. L., & Rumpel, C. M. (1981). Can people detect eyewitness-identification accuracy within and across situations? Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 79–89. Macmillan, N. A., & Creelman, C. D. (1991). Detection theory: A user’s guide. New York: Cambridge University Press. Mosteller, F., & Tukey, J. W. (1968). Data analysis including statistics. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronsen (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 80–203). Reading, PA: Addison-Wesley. Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972). Pike, G., Brace, N., & Kynan, S. (2002). The visual identification of suspects: Procedures and practice Sauer, J. D., Brewer, N., & Weber, N. (2008). Multiple confidence estimates as indices of eyewitness memory Sauerland, M., & Sporer, S. (2009). Fast and confident: Postdicting eyewitness identification accuracy in a field study Schacter, D. L. (1999). The seven sins of memory. American Psychologist, 54, 182–203. Shaw, J. S. (1996). Increases in eyewitness confidence resulting from postevent questioning Shaw, J. S., & McClure, K. A. (1996). Repeated postevent questioning can lead to elevated levels of eyewitness confidence. Sheskin, D. (2004). Handbook of parametric and non-parametric statistical procedures (3rd ed.) Sporer, S. L., Penrod, S. D., Read, D., & Cutler, B. L. (1995). Van Zandt, T. (2000). ROC curves and confidence judgments in recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 582–600. 123 Law Hum Behav (2010) 34:337–347 Weber, N., & Brewer, N. (2003). The effect of judgment type and confidence scale on confidence-accuracy calibration in face recognition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 490–499. Weber, N., & Brewer, N. (2004). Confidence-accuracy calibration in absolute and relative face recognition judgements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 10, 156–172. Weber, N., & Brewer, N. (2006). Positive versus negative face recognition decisions: Confidence, accuracy and response latency. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 17–31. Wells, G. L. (1993). What do we know about eyewitness identifica- tion? American Psychologist, 48, 553–571. Wells, G. L., & Olson, E. A. (2002). Eyewitness identification: Information gain from incriminating and exonerating behaviors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 8, 155–167. Wells, G. L., Small, M., Penrod, S., Malpass, R. S., Fulero, S. M., & Brimacombe, C. A. E. (1998). Eyewitness identification proce- dures: Recommendations for lineups and photo spreads. Law & Human Behavior, 22, 603–647.