Confidence and Eyewitness Identifications: The Cross‐Race Effect, Decision Time and Accuracy

Dodson, Chad S.; Dobolyi, David G.

doi:10.1002/acp.3178

Cited by 65 publications

(105 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In conclusion, replicating and expanding on previous findings (Dodson & Dobolyi, 2015a ; Tekin & Roediger, 2017 ), we demonstrated that the verbal scales with relatively few values used by police departments lead to CA relationships similar to those of more fine-grained scales. Providing numeric labels for verbal scales did not improve the CA relationship.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

“…Dodson and Dobolyi ( 2015a ) showed that providing verbal or numeric labels and varying the number of confidence points on a 100-point scale (6 points: 0, 20, 40, 60, 80, 100; or 11 points: 0, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100) did not change the CA relationship for eyewitness identification. Nonetheless, they employed a 100-point scale, which is unlikely to be used by police departments.…”

Section: Significancementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The relationship between confidence and accuracy with verbal and verbal + numeric confidence scales

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Police departments often use verbal confidence measures (highly confident, somewhat confident) with a small number of values, whereas psychologists measuring the confidence–accuracy relationship typically use numeric scales with a large range of values (20-point or 100-point scales). We compared verbal and verbal + numeric confidence scales for two different lineups, using either two or four levels of confidence. We found strong confidence–accuracy relationships that were unaffected by the nature of the scale at the highest level of confidence. High confidence corresponded to high accuracy with both two- and four-level scales, and the scale type (verbal only or verbal + numeric) did not matter. Police using a simple scale of “highly confident” and “somewhat confident” can, according to our results, rest assured that high confidence indicates high accuracy on a first identification from a lineup. In addition, our two lineups differed greatly in difficulty, yet the confidence–accuracy relationship was quite strong for both lineups, although somewhat lower for the more difficult lineup.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Section: Significancementioning

confidence: 99%

The relationship between confidence and accuracy with verbal and verbal + numeric confidence scales

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The sample of nonchoosers and the rejection data referred to were described in Sauerland et al [ 33 ]. Following other researchers [ 17 , 20 , 45 ], we report results for the thief and victim showup combined. This is in accordance with the idea of stimulus sampling [ 17 , 46 ] and ensures a more stable representation of the associations displayed.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Decision time and confidence predict choosers' identification performance in photographic showups

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In vast contrast to the multitude of lineup studies that report on the link between decision time, confidence, and identification accuracy, only a few studies looked at these associations for showups, with results varying widely across studies. We therefore set out to test the individual and combined value of decision time and post-decision confidence for diagnosing the accuracy of positive showup decisions using confidence-accuracy characteristic curves and Bayesian analyses. Three-hundred-eighty-four participants viewed a stimulus event and were subsequently presented with two showups which could be target-present or target-absent. As expected, we found a negative decision time-accuracy and a positive post-decision confidence-accuracy correlation for showup selections. Confidence-accuracy characteristic curves demonstrated the expected additive effect of combining both postdictors. Likewise, Bayesian analyses, taking into account all possible target-presence base rate values showed that fast and confident identification decisions were more diagnostic than slow or less confident decisions, with the combination of both being most diagnostic for postdicting accurate and inaccurate decisions. The postdictive value of decision time and post-decision confidence was higher when the prior probability that the suspect is the perpetrator was high compared to when the prior probability that the suspect is the perpetrator was low. The frequent use of showups in practice emphasizes the importance of these findings for court proceedings. Overall, these findings support the idea that courts should have most trust in showup identifications that were made fast and confidently, and least in showup identifications that were made slowly and with low confidence.

show abstract

“…A consistent finding is that estimator variable manipulations largely do not negatively impact the overall CA relationship. Indeed, manipulations of weapon presence (Carlson, Dias, Weatherford, & Carlson, 2017), exposure time (Carlson et al, 2016; Palmer, Brewer, Weber, & Nagesh, 2013), retention interval (Sauer, Brewer, Zweck, & Weber, 2010), and race (Dodson & Dobolyi, 2016) have all shown that regardless of condition, accuracy increases with confidence, and highly confident eyewitnesses tend to be highly accurate.…”

Section: The Confidence–accuracy Relationshipmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of viewing distance on empirical discriminability and the confidence–accuracy relationship for eyewitness identification

Lockamyeir

Carlson

Jones

et al. 2020

Applied Cognitive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary The distance from which an eyewitness views a perpetrator is a critical factor for eyewitness identification, but has received little research attention. We presented three mock‐crime videos to participants, varying distance to three perpetrators (3, 10, or 20 m). Across two experiments, increased distance reduced empirical discriminability in the form of a mirror effect, such that correct identifications decreased while false identifications increased. Moreover, high confidence identifications were associated with high accuracy at 3 m (Experiment 1 and 2) and 10 m (Experiment 2), but not at 20 m. We conclude that eyewitnesses may be less likely to identify a perpetrator viewed at a distance, and also more likely to falsely identify an innocent suspect. Furthermore, there may be certain boundary conditions associated with distance and the impact it has on the confidence–accuracy relationship. More research is needed to elucidate the effect of estimator variable manipulations on the confidence–accuracy relationship.

show abstract

Confidence and Eyewitness Identifications: The Cross‐Race Effect, Decision Time and Accuracy

Cited by 65 publications

References 48 publications

The relationship between confidence and accuracy with verbal and verbal + numeric confidence scales

The relationship between confidence and accuracy with verbal and verbal + numeric confidence scales

Decision time and confidence predict choosers' identification performance in photographic showups

The effect of viewing distance on empirical discriminability and the confidence–accuracy relationship for eyewitness identification

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About