The language of accurate and inaccurate eyewitnesses.

Seale-Carlisle, Travis M.; Grabman, Jesse H.; Dodson, Chad S.

doi:10.1037/xge0001152

Cited by 15 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 74 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Importantly, ChatGPT may categorize phrases differently when presented with (a) the same phrase set, and (b) the same prompts because of its probabilistic algorithm. Consistent interpretation is difficult, likely because of the unique information provided in own words confidence statements (Seale‐Carlisle et al, 2022).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Encouragingly, verbal and numeric confidence have been shown to be similarly predictive of identification accuracy (e.g., Mansour, 2020). Verbal confidence statements provide unique diagnostic information (Seale‐Carlisle et al, 2022; Steblay & Wells, 2023), but oftentimes, the language used is vague and subject to misinterpretation (Budescu et al, 2009).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Variability in verbal eyewitness confidence

Pennekamp,

Mansour,

Batstone

2024

Applied Cognitive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Typically, an eyewitness' verbal confidence is used to judge the reliability of their lineup identification. Across three experiments (N = 3976), we examined eyewitnesses' own words confidence in their lineup decision. For identification decisions (n = 1099), we identified 781 quantitatively unique responses representing 132 qualitatively unique statements that could be categorized into low, medium, and high confidence. For rejectors (n = 781), we identified 599 quantitatively unique responses representing 143 qualitatively unique responses that could be categorized into low, medium, and high confidence. Most participants provided a verbal phrase (e.g., pretty sure) but a significant proportion—34.19% of identifiers and 29.05% of rejectors—provided numbers (e.g., 80%). The present data highlight the variability in how confidence is expressed. The criminal justice system would benefit from guidance for interpreting verbal confidence. We provide a picture of eyewitnesses' verbal confidence as a first step.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Variability in verbal eyewitness confidence

Pennekamp,

Mansour,

Batstone

2024

Applied Cognitive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Another developing line of research is provided by Searle-Carlisle and colleagues (e.g., Searle-Carlisle et al, 2019, 2022), who have applied machine-learning techniques in the lab to examine witness’s verbal confidence statements. They conclude that verbal confidence statements provide unique diagnostic information about identification accuracy, and they encourage future work regarding the predictive properties of specific words.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

In their own words: Verbalizations of real eyewitnesses during identification lineups.

Steblay¹,

Wells²

2023

Psychology, Public Policy, and Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Audio recordings of real eyewitnesses from double-blind lineup sessions in real police investigations are described for two samples: 102 choosers and 162 non-choosers. Blind evaluators coded eyewitness verbalizations. Eyewitnesses' comments should convey the underlying decision processes associated with their identification decisions. Deliberative comments were expected to be more common from eyewitnesses who made affirmative identification errors (filler picks), and automatic comments were expected from witnesses who made suspect identifications. As predicted, the verbalization of an automatic decision was 1.45 times more likely to involve a suspect selection than a filler selection, and more than twice as many filler identifications (known errors) involved deliberative comments than did suspect identifications. Suspect identifiers were 1.51 times more likely to exclusively use holistic verbalizations than filler identifiers. Analysis of witnesses who did not choose from the lineup indicated that at least 18% of non-choosers provided exculpatory evidence through a definitive lineup rejection. An intriguing finding was that holistic face recognition (with or without mention of facial features) was voiced by 90% of choosers with only 10% noting a feature(s) alone. In contrast, 48% of non-choosers commented on a specific facial feature(s) alone without mention of holistic recognition, and 70% of these comments noted the absence of the feature. Affirmative identifications and non-identifications may involve different processes for witness consideration of facial features. The project provides evidence that eyewitness verbal comments are a promising means to understand an eyewitness's experience and underscores recent calls for videotaped eyewitness interviews as policy for evidence collection.

show abstract

“…Recent computerized approaches represent a novel way of understanding the meaning of verbal confidence statements. Seale‐Carlisle et al (2021) used machine‐learning techniques to analyze the content of verbal confidence statements for cues to accuracy. This approach revealed that verbal confidence was predictive of accuracy and that the content of verbal confidence statements contained additional diagnostic cues beyond information provided by numeric confidence.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interpreting eyewitness confidence: Numeric, verbal, and graded verbal scales

Greenspan,

Loftus

2023

Applied Cognitive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In empirical research, eyewitnesses typically report their confidence numerically (e.g., “I'm 90% sure”). In contrast, in the field, lineup administrators typically ask witnesses to explain their confidence verbally, in the witness' own words (e.g., “I'm quite sure”). Across three studies, we explored how evaluators assess verbal confidence statements: both freely reported and reported using a graded verbal scale. Results showed wide variability in the interpretation of both kinds of confidence statements. Even when evaluating seemingly very strong statements of verbal confidence (e.g., “completely certain”) participants did not necessarily translate these statements into the strongest levels of numeric confidence. Variability in the interpretation of verbal confidence was particularly pronounced for low confidence statements. Moreover, participants preferred to report their confidence numerically rather than verbally. These results indicate the importance of documenting confidence verbatim at the time of the lineup so that the meaning of the witness' original confidence statement is preserved.

show abstract

The language of accurate and inaccurate eyewitnesses.

Cited by 15 publications

References 74 publications

Variability in verbal eyewitness confidence

Variability in verbal eyewitness confidence

In their own words: Verbalizations of real eyewitnesses during identification lineups.

Interpreting eyewitness confidence: Numeric, verbal, and graded verbal scales

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About