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

Abstract

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.

Natural Appearance Change Dramatically Harms Eyewitness Identification Accuracy and Reduces the Value of Confidence and Response Time as Reflectors of Accuracy

“…Even when confidence is high, it is not as strong an indicator of accuracy compared to situations where no change occurs. This pattern fits with several other recent studies that demonstrate boundary conditions of the confidence-accuracy relationship (e.g., Carlson, Carlson, and Fitzsimmons 2023;Giacona et al 2021;Lockamyeir et al 2020).…”

Natural Appearance Change Dramatically Harms Eyewitness Identification Accuracy and Reduces the Value of Confidence and Response Time as Reflectors of Accuracy

“…Even when confidence is high, it is not as strong an indicator of accuracy compared to situations where no change occurs. This pattern fits with several other recent studies that demonstrate boundary conditions of the confidence-accuracy relationship (e.g., Carlson, Carlson, and Fitzsimmons 2023;Giacona et al 2021;Lockamyeir et al 2020).…”

Was he the perpetrator or a bystander? Testing theories of unconscious transference for eyewitness identification.

“…This sample size is consistent with several additional studies from the eyewitness field (e.g., Baldassari et al, 2023; M. A. Carlson, Carlson, & Fitzsimmons, 2023; Jones et al, 2020; Lockamyeir et al, 2020, 2021; Seale-Carlisle et al, 2019). As such, our final average sample size per cell ( n = 564) only slightly exceeded this goal.…”

Simulated viewing distance impairs the confidence–accuracy relationship for long, but not moderate distances: support for a model incorporating the role of feature ambiguity

“…Experiments 1a and 1b revealed a seemingly disparate pair of findings similar to Lockamyier et al ( 2020 ) and Nyman et al ( 2019 ). Whereas encoding at a simulated distance did impair memory overall in both experiments, the impact of simulated viewing distance on the confidence–accuracy relationship depended on the level of distance.…”

“…Therefore, we advocate for a modification of the threshold model proposed by Nyman et al ( 2019 ) and supported by Lockamyier et al ( 2020 ). Nyman et al argued that, under a threshold model, as discriminability decreases to very low levels, eyewitnesses are not able to judge the difficulty of the task and scale their confidence judgments downward accordingly.…”

Natural Appearance Change Dramatically Harms Eyewitness Identification Accuracy and Reduces the Value of Confidence and Response Time as Reflectors of Accuracy

“…Even when confidence is high, it is not as strong an indicator of accuracy compared to situations where no change occurs. This pattern fits with several other recent studies that demonstrate boundary conditions of the confidence-accuracy relationship (e.g., Carlson, Carlson, and Fitzsimmons 2023;Giacona et al 2021;Lockamyeir et al 2020).…”

Was he the perpetrator or a bystander? Testing theories of unconscious transference for eyewitness identification.

“…This sample size is consistent with several additional studies from the eyewitness field (e.g., Baldassari et al, 2023; M. A. Carlson, Carlson, & Fitzsimmons, 2023; Jones et al, 2020; Lockamyeir et al, 2020, 2021; Seale-Carlisle et al, 2019). As such, our final average sample size per cell ( n = 564) only slightly exceeded this goal.…”

Simulated viewing distance impairs the confidence–accuracy relationship for long, but not moderate distances: support for a model incorporating the role of feature ambiguity

“…Experiments 1a and 1b revealed a seemingly disparate pair of findings similar to Lockamyier et al ( 2020 ) and Nyman et al ( 2019 ). Whereas encoding at a simulated distance did impair memory overall in both experiments, the impact of simulated viewing distance on the confidence–accuracy relationship depended on the level of distance.…”

“…Therefore, we advocate for a modification of the threshold model proposed by Nyman et al ( 2019 ) and supported by Lockamyier et al ( 2020 ). Nyman et al argued that, under a threshold model, as discriminability decreases to very low levels, eyewitnesses are not able to judge the difficulty of the task and scale their confidence judgments downward accordingly.…”

Natural Appearance Change Dramatically Harms Eyewitness Identification Accuracy and Reduces the Value of Confidence and Response Time as Reflectors of Accuracy

“…Even when confidence is high, it is not as strong an indicator of accuracy compared to situations where no change occurs. This pattern fits with several other recent studies that demonstrate boundary conditions of the confidence-accuracy relationship (e.g., Carlson, Carlson, and Fitzsimmons 2023;Giacona et al 2021;Lockamyeir et al 2020).…”

Was he the perpetrator or a bystander? Testing theories of unconscious transference for eyewitness identification.

“…This sample size is consistent with several additional studies from the eyewitness field (e.g., Baldassari et al, 2023; M. A. Carlson, Carlson, & Fitzsimmons, 2023; Jones et al, 2020; Lockamyeir et al, 2020, 2021; Seale-Carlisle et al, 2019). As such, our final average sample size per cell ( n = 564) only slightly exceeded this goal.…”

Simulated viewing distance impairs the confidence–accuracy relationship for long, but not moderate distances: support for a model incorporating the role of feature ambiguity

“…Experiments 1a and 1b revealed a seemingly disparate pair of findings similar to Lockamyier et al ( 2020 ) and Nyman et al ( 2019 ). Whereas encoding at a simulated distance did impair memory overall in both experiments, the impact of simulated viewing distance on the confidence–accuracy relationship depended on the level of distance.…”

“…Therefore, we advocate for a modification of the threshold model proposed by Nyman et al ( 2019 ) and supported by Lockamyier et al ( 2020 ). Nyman et al argued that, under a threshold model, as discriminability decreases to very low levels, eyewitnesses are not able to judge the difficulty of the task and scale their confidence judgments downward accordingly.…”