Automatic recognition, elimination strategy and familiarity feeling: Cognitive processes predict accuracy from lineup identifications

Eyewitness Decision Processes: A Valid Reflector Variable

“…Indeed, confidence is a valid reflector variable under certain circumstances (Sauer, Brewer, & Palmer, 2019;Wixted & Wells, 2017). A moderately-sized literature has also considered how long an eyewitness takes to make their decision (Brewer et al, 2006;Dunning & Peretta, 2002;Nyman et al, 2019;Seale-Carlisle et al, 2019;Sporer, 1992) and the type of decision process used Kneller, Memon, & Stevenage, 2001;Ross et al, 2007;Smith, Stinson, & Prosser, 2004;Wittwer et al, 2022). Both are consistently found to predict eyewitness accuracy, though there is room for improvement.…”

“…Sauerland and Sporer (2007) found that while Dunning and Stern's (1994) questions predicted identification accuracy, they did not improve predictability beyond what confidence and response time provided. In contrast, some evidence that decision processes may be predictive beyond confidence and response was found by Wittwer et al (2022). Wittwer et al examined 17 self-report decision processes questions in two studies.…”

“…The focus of most prior research on self-reported decision processes has been on overall accuracy, as in Wittwer et al (2022) -or has looked at identifications-that is, picks from lineups (e.g., Lampinen et al, 2019). For example, three of the four experiments Dunning and Stern (1994) conducted to test their questionnaire used only target-present lineups and they compared accurate to inaccurate eyewitnesses, irrespective of whether the decision was an identification or rejection.…”

“…For example, three of the four experiments Dunning and Stern (1994) conducted to test their questionnaire used only target-present lineups and they compared accurate to inaccurate eyewitnesses, irrespective of whether the decision was an identification or rejection. Likewise, although Wittwer et al (2022) examined responses from identifiers and rejectors and included both in their models, their analyses do not permit conclusions to be drawn about rejectors specifically. 1 A few studies have looked at rejectors, however.…”

“…Although the questions created by Dunning and Stern (1994) were intended to differentiate correct and incorrect eyewitnesses, they comprise only five items and reflect a single dimension. Wittwer et al (2022) took a broader approach by using 17 items, but inspection of their items highlights that some of these were double-barreled which can be problematic since participants can make only one response. For example, one item was "I tried to remind myself of the perpetrator so that I could compare him to the proposed photographs."…”