Asking an eyewitness to predict their later lineup performance could harm the confidence–accuracy relationship

Abstract

SummaryFew studies have investigated eyewitnesses' ability to predict their later lineup performance, known as predecision confidence. We applied calibration analysis in two experiments comparing predecision confidence (immediately after encoding but prior to a lineup) to postdecision confidence (immediately after a lineup) to determine which produces a superior relationship with lineup decision accuracy. Experiment 1 (N = 177) featured a multiple‐block lineup recognition paradigm featuring several targets and lineups; Experiment 2 featured an eyewitness identification paradigm with a mock‐crime video and a single lineup for each participant (N = 855). Across both experiments, postdecision confidence discriminated well between correct and incorrect lineup decisions, but predecision confidence was a poor predictor of accuracy. Moreover, simply asking for predecision confidence weakened the postdecision confidence–accuracy relationship. This implies that police should exercise caution when interviewing eyewitnesses, as they should not be asked to predict their ability to make an accurate lineup decision.

Pre-identification confidence is related to eyewitness lineup identification accuracy across heterogeneous encoding conditions.

“…From a theoretical standpoint, the current study's findings help reconcile the apparent discrepancy between, on the one hand, the basic cognitive literature showing that people's judgments of learning can be predictive of subsequent task performance, and, on the other hand, the eyewitness literature's consistent failure to find that pre-ID confidence is associated with accuracy (Cutler & Penrod, 1989a;Nguyen et al, 2018;Whittington et al, 2020). We argue here that past eyewitness methodologies, which limited variability in witnesses' encoding, effectively produced a series of type II errors, leading researchers to erroneously conclude that the pre-ID confidence-accuracy relationship was weaker than it actually was.…”

“…Using a basic face recognition task, Nguyen et al (2018) showed that pre-ID confidence was not associated with later face recognition. Whittington et al (2020) similarly demonstrated that pre-ID confidence did not predict subsequent accuracy using a basic face recognition paradigm (study 1), and also showed a similar lack of association using an eyewitness task (study 2).…”

“…For instance, most researchers have assessed pre-ID confidence with a single question regarding one’s belief that they can make an accurate identification decision (e.g., Sauerland & Sporer, 2009; Whittington et al, 2020). We believed this to be problematic from a theoretical standpoint, however, as a witness might have very different beliefs regarding accuracy in the correct identification of a suspect versus accuracy in the correct rejection of a lineup containing an innocent suspect.…”

“…Yet researchers’ increased understanding of the relationship of post-identification (post-ID) confidence and lineup identification accuracy has not been matched by a concomitant increased understanding of the relationship between witnesses’ pre-identification (pre-ID) confidence and subsequent lineup identification accuracy. The general conclusion derived from the extant relevant literature is that there is no, or at most only a very weak, relationship between eyewitnesses’ pre-identification confidence and accuracy (e.g., Nguyen et al, 2018; Whittington et al, 2020; see Cutler & Penrod, 1989a, for a review).…”

Does exposure to facial composites damage eyewitness memory? A comprehensive review

“…Further, witnesses were asked to rate their confidence both before and after conducting the lineup task. Recent research has shown that asking witnesses about their confidence before an identification task regarding whether they will be able to identify the perpetrator (i.e., pre‐decision confidence) may reduce the diagnosticity of the post‐decision confidence‐accuracy relationship (Whittington et al, 2019).…”