Post‐identification feedback,confidence and recollections of witnessing conditions in child witnesses

Eyewitness confidence and detailed memory reports are often considered reliable indicators of the credibility of the eyewitness testimony. This study investigated how feedback concerning the accuracy of a lineup identification influences witnesses' confidence in the accuracy of their identification decision and their judgements concerning the witnessing experience. Fifty‐seven children (11–12 years) and 55 adults (17–39 years) viewed a video of a robbery and attempted to identify the culprit from a photo lineup. The culprit was not present. Participants received confirming feedback, disconfirming feedback, or no feedback on the accuracy of their identification. The confidence judgements and recollections of witnessing conditions of both children and adults were influenced by confirming and in some instances, disconfirming feedback. These findings imply that confidence and memory reports are easily distorted by non‐specific feedback and investigators should be sensitive to this particularly when dealing with vulnerable witnesses such as children. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Memory distortion in eyewitnesses: a meta‐analysis of the post‐identification feedback effect

Feedback administered to eyewitnesses after they make a line‐up identification dramatically distorts a wide range of retrospective judgements (e.g. G. L. Wells & A. L. Bradfield, 1998 Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(3), 360–376.). This paper presents a meta‐analysis of extant research on post‐identification feedback, including 20 experimental tests with over 2400 participant‐witnesses. The effect of confirming feedback (i.e. ‘Good, you identified the suspect’) was robust. Large effect sizes were obtained for most dependent measures, including the key measures of retrospective certainty, view and attention. Smaller effect sizes were obtained for so‐called objective measures (e.g. length of time the culprit was in view) and comparisons between disconfirming feedback and control conditions. This meta‐analysis demonstrates the reliability and robustness of the post‐identification feedback effect. It reinforces recommendations for double‐blind testing, recording of eyewitness reports immediately after an identification is made, and reconsideration by court systems of variables currently recommended for consideration in eyewitness evaluations. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Postidentification feedback effects on face recognition confidence: evidence for metacognitive influences

Information given to witnesses after an identification decision greatly alters their impressions of the original event and importantly, their identification confidence. Two experiments investigated the possibility that the effect of feedback on confidence may be altered according to the strength of the witness's cues to accuracy. Experiment 1 used a manipulation of exposure duration to alter recognition accuracy prior to the delivery of confirming, disconfirming or no feedback. While the feedback effect was not different across exposure duration conditions, decisions that were made more quickly were less likely to show large changes in confidence due to feedback. Experiment 2 manipulated the distinctiveness of faces and showed that the effects of feedback on confidence, and on the resolution of the confidence judgement, were more pronounced when disconfirming feedback was given for distinctive faces and when confirming feedback was given for typical faces. These studies showed that the impressions that participants formed of their likely accuracy might moderate the effects of feedback on decision confidence. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The effect of post‐identification feedback on the recall of crime and perpetrator details

The present study examines the effect of identification feedback on the quantity and accuracy of crime event details recalled, willingness to attempt misleading questions and confidence in the accuracy of these details. All participants (N = 60) viewed a short video clip of a staged building society robbery and then made a false identification of the robber from a target‐absent photospread. Eyewitnesses were next given confirming feedback (i.e. told that they had identified the suspect), disconfirming feedback (i.e. told that they had failed to identify the suspect) or no feedback. All eyewitnesses then attempted a series of short‐answer questions relating to details about the robber, accomplice, victim, building society, theft and getaway. Disconfirming feedback significantly reduced eyewitness confidence in recall accuracy but there was no significant effect of feedback on the overall quantity and accuracy of details recalled or willingness to attempt misleading questions. The theoretical implications of these results are discussed. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

When accurate and inaccurate eyewitnesses look the same: a limitation of the ‘pop‐out’ effect and the 10‐ to 12‐second rule

Research has found support for a ‘pop‐out effect’ that occurs when witnesses who accurately identify a criminal from a lineup are faster and uses more automatic processing than inaccurate witnesses who misidentify a foil. We present evidence that this finding may not occur with biased lineups. Witnesses to a mock theft were asked to make a lineup identification and three types of witnesses were compared: (1) accurate witnesses who identified a thief, (2) inaccurate witnesses who misidentified a foil who was more similar looking to the thief than the other lineup foils and (3) inaccurate witnesses who misidentified a foil who was not more similar in appearance to the thief than the other lineup foils. Accurate witnesses who identified the thief and inaccurate witnesses who misidentified a foil more similar to the thief than the other lineup foils were indistinguishable; both were faster, used more automatic recognition processes and were more confident than inaccurate witnesses who identified other foils. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The effect of cross‐examination on the accuracy of adult eyewitness testimony

Cross‐examination permits styles of questioning that increase eyewitness error (e.g. leading questions). Previous research has shown that under cross‐examination children change many of their initially accurate answers. An experiment is reported in which the effect of cross‐examination on accuracy of adult eyewitness testimony was investigated. Twenty‐two student witnesses watched a video of a staged theft, either in pairs, or individually. Paired witnesses discussed the video with their co‐witnesses, but did not know they had seen slightly different versions. Participants in the co‐witness condition demonstrated memory conformity and recalled less accurately than witnesses in the control condition. After approximately 4 weeks all participants were cross‐examined by a trainee barrister. Following cross‐examination there was no difference in accuracy between the two experimental groups. Witnesses in both conditions made many changes to their previous reports by altering both initially correct and incorrect answers. The results demonstrate negative effects of cross‐examination on the accuracy of adult eyewitness testimony. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

What US judges know and believe about eyewitness testimony

In a survey, 160 US judges indicated their knowledge and beliefs about eyewitness testimony. Although correct on some issues, judges were often wrong on important issues such as whether at trial eyewitness confidence is a good indicator of eyewitness accuracy, and if jurors can distinguish accurate from inaccurate witnesses. Increased knowledge was associated with: a willingness to permit legal safeguards, including expert testimony at trial; a belief that jurors have limited knowledge of eyewitness factors; a reluctance to convict defendants solely from eyewitness testimony; a more accurate estimate of the extent to which wrongful convictions result from eyewitness error; and a belief that judges need more eyewitness training. Additional training about factors and procedures that affect eyewitness accuracy may help judges reduce the number of wrongful convictions. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The effects of co-witness discussion on confidence and precision in eyewitness memory reports

We examined the influence of co-witness discussion on the metacognitive regulation of memory reports. Participants (N?=?92) watched a crime video. Later, a confederate confidently agreed with (gave confirming feedback), disagreed with (gave disconfirming feedback), or gave no feedback (control) regarding participants’ answers to questions about the video. Participants who received disconfirming feedback reported fewer fine-grain details than participants in the confirming and control conditions on a subsequent, individual recall test for a different question set. Unexpectedly, this decrease in fine-grain reporting was not accompanied by a decrease in participants’ confidence in the accuracy of their fine-grain responses. These results indicate that receiving social comparative feedback about one’s memory performance can affect rememberers’ metamemorial control decisions, and potentially decrease the level of detail they volunteer in later memory reports. Further research is needed to assess whether these results replicate under different experimental conditions, and to explore the effects of social influences on metamemory.     

Witnesses’ memories for lineup fillers postdicts their identification accuracy

Witnesses who have quick, automatic recognition experiences when viewing a lineup tend to make more accurate decisions than witnesses who engage in slower, more deliberative processes. A novel postdictor of identification accuracy is predicted from these findings: memories for lineup fillers should be stronger among inaccurate, rather than accurate, witnesses. Undergraduate students (N = 320) viewed a mock crime, made a lineup identification decision, and were given a surprise test for their memory for the lineup fillers. Consistent with predictions, better memories for lineup fillers postdicted mistaken identifications and the suspect's innocence. Information gain analyses showed that under some conditions, memory for lineup fillers provided as much information about the suspect's guilt as a lineup identification. Findings are consistent with the idea that postdictors of eyewitness accuracy are valuable to the extent that they measure the automaticity or deliberativeness of the witness's experience when viewing the lineup.     

Repetition and Reconfiguration: Demand‐Based Confabulation in Initial Eyewitness Memory

Repeated recall, as a result of repeated questioning, is typical of situations involving eyewitness evidence. The present study addressed questions of eyewitness performance with reference to repeated questioning in an initial interview, in a format based on actual police procedures. This experiment focused on eyewitness accuracy, eyewitness confidence, and the addition of false details to eyewitness accounts. Ninety‐two adult respondents were asked to recall all the information they could from a single viewing of a scene depicting an assailant aiming a handgun at a victim. This initial question was followed by three additional questions, in which respondents were asked to report any additional details they could recall. On average, respondents provided several times as many correct as false details to the initial question. However, performance deteriorated significantly to the three subsequent questions; on average, across the three subsequent questions, witnesses recalled nearly as much false as accurate information. Witness confidence was positively related to amount of accurate information recalled. However, confidence was also positively related to the number of instances of erroneous recall. These results indicate that reconfigurative dynamics begin to operate, producing confabulated responses in response to questioning demands, as early as the initial interview. This work may also help to clarify the critical relationship between accuracy and confidence in eyewitness reportage, at least within the framework reflected by the present research. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Post‐identification feedback effects: Investigators and evaluators

We investigated the effects of post‐identification feedback and viewing conditions on beliefs and interviewing tactics of participant‐investigators, crime reports of participant‐witnesses and participant‐evaluators' credibility judgments of the witnesses. Study 1 participants assumed the roles of witness and investigator (N = 167 pairs). Witnesses' view of a simulated crime video was manipulated by distance from viewing monitor: 2 or 9 ft. Participants made a line‐up identification and received either positive feedback or no feedback. Significant effects for witnesses and investigators were associated with viewing condition and post‐identification feedback. Interviews between investigator‐witness pairs were videotaped. Investigators asked more positive, leading questions when they were led to believe that the witness had identified the suspect. In Study 2 evaluators (N = 302) viewed the witness‐investigator interviews. Viewing condition had no effect on judgments of witness credibility but positive post‐identification feedback led evaluators to judge witnesses as more credible than witnesses who received no feedback. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The accuracy-confidence correlation in eyewitness testimony: limits and extensions of the retrospective self-awareness effect.

This research extended Kassin's (1985) finding that retrospective self-awareness (RSA) increases the correlation between eyewitness accuracy and confidence. In Experiment 1, 91 mock witnesses saw a crime, answered questions, made an identification decision, and rated their confidence. RSA increased the accuracy-confidence correlation for witnesses who made an identification and for those who were high but not low in public self-consciousness. A 2nd experiment varied accountability and revealed that high accountability increased the accuracy-confidence correlation but that the RSA effect occurred even under low-accountability conditions. In both studies, observers could not distinguish between accurate and inaccurate witnesses. Together, these findings define the limits of the RSA effect and provide mixed support for a self-perception account of this effect.     

How do we judge our confidence? Differential effects of meta-memory feedback on eyewitness accuracy and confidence

According to the cue–belief model, we assess confidence in our memories using self-credibility cues that reflect beliefs about our memory faculties. We tested the influence of meta-memory feedback on self-credibility cues in the context of eyewitness testimony, when feedback was provided prior to “testifying” via a memory questionnaire (Experiment 1) and after an initial memory questionnaire but before participants had to retake it (Experiment 2). Participants received feedback (good score, bad score, or none) on a fictitious scale purported to predict eyewitness memory ability. Those given good score feedback before testifying were more confident (but no more accurate) than those given bad score feedback. Feedback also affected confidence (good increased and bad decreased) and accuracy (good increased) after testifying but only on leading questions. These differential effects of meta-memory feedback on confidence for normal and leading questions are not explained by the cue–belief model. Implications for our confidence judgments are discussed.     

The damaging effect of confirming feedback on the relation between eyewitness certainty and identification accuracy

The authors investigated eyewitnesses' retrospective certainty (see G. L. Wells & A. L. Bradfield, 1999). The authors hypothesized that extemal influence from the lineup administrator would damage the certainty-accuracy relation by inflating the retrospective certainty of inaccurate eyewitnesses more than that of accurate eyewitnesses (N = 245). Two variables were manipulated: eyewitness accuracy (through the presence or absence of the culprit in the lineup) and feedback (confirming vs. control). Confirming feedback inflated retrospective certainty more for inaccurate eyewitnesses than for accurate eyewitnesses, significantly reducing the certainty-accuracy relation (from r = .58 in the control condition to r = .37 in the confirming feedback condition). Double-blind testing is recommended for lineups to prevent these external influences on eyewitnesses.     

The effects of post ‐identification feedback and age on retrospective eyewitness memory

Two studies examined the effects of post‐identification feedback, age, and retention interval on participants' memories and beliefs about memories for a videotaped event, as captured by a store surveillance camera. After viewing the video, they were then asked to identify the suspect from a target‐absent photo line‐up. After making their identification, some participants were given information suggesting that their identification was correct, while others were given no information about the accuracy of their identification. In both experiments participants who received confirming feedback indicated they were more confident in their identification, paid more attention to the video, and that they were more willing to testify in court than those who received no feedback. The confidence inflation effects of post‐identification feedback did not vary with retention interval or age. These results are consistent with a position focusing on accessibility, which suggests that witnesses have little or no retrievable recollection of how sure they were at the time of their identification. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Exposure duration: Effects on eyewitness accuracy and confidence

The current study examined the relationship between the length of exposure to a face in an eyewitness setting and identification accuracy and confidence. A sample of 164 young (ages 17–25) and older (ages 59–81) adults viewed a simulated crime in which they saw the culprit's face for a short (12 s) or long (45 s) duration. They were then tested with a target absent (a line‐up not containing the culprit) or target present line‐up. Identification accuracy rates for both young and older participants were significantly higher under the long exposure condition. In the short exposure condition, witnesses who had made a correct identification of the target were more confident than incorrect witnesses. In the long exposure condition the confidence ratings of accurate and inaccurate witnesses did not differ. Discussion focuses on the extent to which extended exposure may inflate confidence judgments and variables that may moderate the relationship between exposure duration and face recognition accuracy.