Repeated recall, retention interval and the accuracy–confidence relation in eyewitness memory

Abstract

People can evaluate the quality of their memories by giving a confidence judgement concerning the perceived accuracy of what is recalled or recognised. Even when people strive for accuracy and claim great confidence they may, however, not remember what actually happened. Both accuracy and confidence can be affected by various factors. In this study, we investigated the effects of retention interval (either 1, 3 or 5 weeks delay before first testing) and of repeated questioning (initial recall after 1 week, repeated after 3 and 5 weeks) on accuracy and confidence of recall of a naturalistic videotaped event. Longer retention intervals before initial testing resulted in lower accuracy and lower confidence scores. Repeated recall, however, had little effect on accuracy and confidence. Relatively high accuracy-confidence correlations were found in all delay and repetition conditions. Practical implications of these findings for questioning eyewitnesses are discussed.

Intoxicated witnesses and suspects: An archival analysis of their involvement in criminal case processing.

“…In the present study, we found that most witnesses, both sober and intoxicated, were interviewed on the same day as the crime. On the one hand, interviewing witnesses soon after the crime has the mnemonic benefit of slowing Intoxicated witnesses and suspects 16 down the rate of forgetting (Odinot & Wolters, 2006). Additionally, previous research has found that interviewing a witness multiple times helps to preserve the accuracy of memory across the retention interval in both sober (Ebbesen & Rienick, 1998) and intoxicated (Yuille & Tollestrup, 1990) participants.…”

Remembering remotely: would video-mediation impair witnesses' memory reports?

“…Of further concern is that whereas correct recall decreases as the retention interval increases, incorrect recall does not always decrease in a comparable manner, and in some cases even increases (Larsson, Granhag, & Spjut, 2003;Tuckey & Brewer, 2003). The net effect of these patterns is that longer retention intervals often lead to memory reports that are less accurate overall (Ebbesen & Rienick, 1998;Odinot & Wolters, 2006). Moreover, long delays also provide greater opportunity for memory to become contaminated by external sources such as co-witnesses (French, Garry, & Mori, 2011;Gabbert, Memon, & Allan, 2003;Hope, Ost, Gabbert, Healey, & Lenton, 2008).…”

Confidence–Accuracy Calibration with General Knowledge and Eyewitness Memory Cued Recall Questions

“…Odinot and Wolters (2006) showed a video that ended in a traffic accident, and asked 22 open-ended questions several times. Observed calibration was apparently similar to the theoretically perfect, although the authors simply presented the calibration curve without quantifying it, thus missing some of the relevant information that calibration may have offered.…”