The effect of retention interval on the confidence–accuracy relationship for eyewitness identification.

2010 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. 337-347 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Sauer ◽  
Neil Brewer ◽  
Tick Zweck ◽  
Nathan Weber
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sergii Yaremenko ◽  
Melanie Sauerland ◽  
Lorraine Hope

AbstractThe circadian rhythm regulates arousal levels throughout the day and determines optimal periods for engaging in mental activities. Individuals differ in the time of day at which they reach their peak: Morning-type individuals are at their best in the morning and evening types perform better in the evening. Performance in recall and recognition of non-facial stimuli is generally superior at an individual’s circadian peak. In two studies (Ns = 103 and 324), we tested the effect of time-of-testing optimality on eyewitness identification performance. Morning- and evening-type participants viewed stimulus films depicting staged crimes and made identification decisions from target-present and target-absent lineups either at their optimal or non-optimal time-of-day. We expected that participants would make more accurate identification decisions and that the confidence-accuracy and decision time-accuracy relationships would be stronger at optimal compared to non-optimal time of day. In Experiment 1, identification accuracy was unexpectedly superior at non-optimal compared to optimal time of day in target-present lineups. In Experiment 2, identification accuracy did not differ between the optimal and non-optimal time of day. Contrary to our expectations, confidence-accuracy relationship was generally stronger at non-optimal compared to optimal time of day. In line with our predictions, non-optimal testing eliminated decision-time-accuracy relationship in Experiment 1.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emily Rebecca Spearing ◽  
Kimberley A. Wade

A growing body of research suggests that confidence judgements can provide a useful indicator of memory accuracy under some conditions. One factor known to affect eyewitness accuracy, yet rarely examined in the confidence-accuracy literature, is retention interval. Using calibration analyses, we investigated how retention interval affects the confidence-accuracy relationship for eyewitness recall. In total, 611 adults watched a mock crime video and completed a cued-recall test either immediately, after 1 week, or after 1 month. Long (1 month) delays led to lower memory accuracy, lower confidence judgements, and impaired the confidence-accuracy relationship compared to shorter (immediate and 1 week) delays. Long-delay participants who reported very high levels of confidence tended to be over-confident in the accuracy of their memories compared to other participants. Self-rated memory ability, however, did not predict eyewitness confidence or the confidence-accuracy relationship. We discuss the findings in relation to cue-utilization theory and a retrieval-fluency account.


2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Michael Zimmerman ◽  
Jacqueline L. Austin ◽  
Lindsey M. Rhead ◽  
Krystal A. Almeida ◽  
Margaret Bull Kovera

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carolyn Semmler ◽  
John Cameron Dunn ◽  
Laura Mickes ◽  
John Wixted

Estimator variables are factors that can affect the accuracy of eyewitness identifications but that are outside of the control of the criminal justice system. Examples include (1) the duration of exposure to the perpetrator, (2) the passage of time between the crime and the identification (retention interval), (3) the distance between the witness and the perpetrator at the time of the crime. Suboptimal estimator variables (e.g., long distance) have long been thought to reduce the reliability of eyewitness identifications (IDs), but recent evidence suggests that this is not true of IDs made with high confidence and may or may not be true of IDs made with lower confidence. The evidence suggests that while suboptimal estimator variables decrease discriminability (i.e., the ability to distinguish innocent from guilty suspects), they do not decrease the reliability of IDs made with high confidence. Such findings are inconsistent with the longstanding “optimality hypothesis” and therefore require a new theoretical framework. Here, we propose that a signal-detection-based likelihood ratio account – which has long been a mainstay of basic theories of recognition memory – naturally accounts for these findings.


2020 ◽  
Vol 34 (5) ◽  
pp. 1047-1060
Author(s):  
Robert F. Lockamyeir ◽  
Curt A. Carlson ◽  
Alyssa R. Jones ◽  
Maria A. Carlson ◽  
Dawn R. Weatherford

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document