Context influences interpretation of eyewitness confidence statements.

Abstract

When an eyewitness makes an identification from a lineup, he or she is asked to provide a confidence statement to help jurors assess credibility. However, these are verbal statements and people must rely on metacognitive processes to correctly interpret them. Recently, Dodson and Dobolyi (2015) argued that a person's interpretation of a witness's verbal confidence is influenced by the diagnosticity of the features used to justify his or her identification. We tested this hypothesis in 2 experiments. Experiment 1 found that, relative to a confidence-only control, participants reduced their ratings of confidence when statements were justified using a facial feature that was shared by lineup members, but not when the feature was unique to the member chosen from the lineup. In Experiment 2, we found that participants integrated across the dimensions of witness confidence and accuracy, even when asked to make separate ratings. Altogether, the results suggest that people readily incorporate contextual information into their interpretations of witnesses' verbal expressions of confidence and evaluations of accuracy. (PsycINFO Database Record

Two eyewitnesses are more persuasive than one except when they remember a suspect's feature.

“…Finally, it is worth explaining why the effect-size for the featural justification effect in the single eyewitness conditions (e.g., Conf-only vs. Feat-only) in Experiment 1 is smaller than what has been observed in previous studies (Cash & Lane, 2017;Dobolyi & Dodson, 2018;Dodson & Dobolyi, 2015. In previous studies, participants saw eight lineups, whereas in Experiment 1 they saw a single lineup.…”

The language of accurate and inaccurate eyewitnesses.

“…While there is much information about the value that confidence holds when a numeric rating scale is used, less is known about the diagnostic value of verbal confidence statements (Behrman & Richards, 2005;Cash & Lane, 2017;2021;Dobolyi & Dodson, 2018;Dodson & Dobolyi, 2015;Grabman, Dobolyi, Berelovich, & Dodson, 2019;Klobuchar, Steblay, & Caliguiri, 2006;Mansour, 2020). Wixted and Wells (2017) highlighted this as a priority for future research, about which they asked: Should a confidence statement be taken in the witness's own words (as in Klobuchar et al, 2006), or should confidence be recorded using an explicit 3-point rating scale (as in Wixted et al, 2016) -or should a 100-point scale be used?…”

“…Although there is much information about the value that confidence holds when a numeric rating scale is used, less is known about the diagnostic value of verbal confidence statements (Behrman & Richards, 2005;Cash & Lane, 2017;Dobolyi & Dodson, 2018;Dodson & Dobolyi, 2015;Klobuchar et al, 2006;Mansour, 2020). Wixted and Wells (2017) highlighted this as a priority for future research, about which they asked:…”

The language of accurate and inaccurate eyewitnesses

“…While there is much information about the value that confidence holds when a rating scale is used, less is known about the diagnostic value that verbal confidence statements hold (Behrman & Richards, 2005;Cash & Lane, 2017;Dobolyi & Dodson, 2018;Dodson & Dobolyi, 2015;Grabman, Dobolyi, Berelovich, & Dodson, 2019;Klobuchar, Steblay, & Caliguiri, 2006;Mansour, 2020). This is why Wixted and Wells (2017) highlighted this as a priority for future research, about which they asked: Should a confidence statement be taken in the witness's own words (as in Klobuchar et al, 2006), or should confidence be recorded using an explicit 3-point rating scale (as in Wixted et al, 2016) -or should a 100-point scale be used?…”