Can self-reported encoding strategy and recognition skill be diagnostic of performance in eyewitness identifications?

Abstract

The relationship between 3 witness factors and identification accuracy, as well as calibration and diagnosticity of confidence, was investigated. A total of 384 participants in an eyewitness experiment rated their facial recognition skill, general memory skill, and self-reported encoding strategy on a questionnaire presented after the photo-confrontation. Participants who rated themselves to be good face recognizers showed a slightly higher overall accuracy with a more diagnostic confidence-accuracy relation. Participants who reported that they relied on a holistic encoding strategy were associated with more accurate identifications and a stronger confidence-accuracy relation than those who reported an analytic encoding strategy. Degree of self-reported general memory skill was not diagnostic of identification performance.

Dissociating Confidence and Accuracy: Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Shows Origins of the Subjective Memory Experience

“…Behavioral research has also shown that conditions at the time of encoding influence the confidence-accuracy relationship, and our study provides evidence that it has a neural basis. As mentioned previously, in a videotaped simulated crime, Olsson and Juslin (1999) found that subjects who rated their encoding of the perpetrator as ''holistic'' (deep) rather than ''analytic'' (shallow) showed higher identification accuracy and a stronger correlation between confidence and accuracy. Frost and Weaver (1997), also using a simulated eyewitness event, showed that increasing the time of encoding could eliminate misinformation effects that led to increased misidentifications.…”

“…Olsson and Juslin (1999) found that subjects who rated their encoding of a perpetrator as ''holistic'' (deep) rather than ''analytic'' (shallow) showed higher identification accuracy and a stronger correlation between confidence and accuracy. Frost and Weaver (1997 ) showed that memory distortions from misleading information could be eliminated with a longer encoding condition and more retrieval cues.…”

The application of multiple lineups in a field study

“…We believe that both methods and their reasoning have their legitimization. Researchers must be cautious when deciding for one or the other method and we believe it most appropriate to report more than one measure (for methods of establishing innocent suspect choices other than the ones used here, see Clare & Lewandowsky, 2004;Fleet et al, 1987;Olsson & Juslin, 1999;Sporer, 1993Sporer, , 2007. Accuracy rates in the four different lineup types were not associated with each other.…”

“…Kneller, Memon, & Stevenage, 2001;Sporer, 1992Sporer, , 1993Sporer, , 2007, second, selected by experienced policemen who create the photo-spreads (e.g. Brigham et al, 1986;Fleet, Brigham, & Bothwell, 1987;Olsson & Juslin, 1999), or, third, the foil chosen most often (Pryke et al, 2004). Fourth, one of several foils who are rated as similar to the target is randomly selected (e.g.…”

Exogenous social identity cues differentially affect the dynamic tracking of individual target faces.

“…A number of face-recognition studies have highlighted the advantage of a semantic or holistic decision-making process, as compared to a feature-based one (e.g., Olsson & Juslin, 1999). One reason for this is that trait judgements are deeper and therefore more elaborate, leading to better memory performance (e.g., Coin & Tiberghien, 1997;Gallo, Meadow, Johnson & Foster, 2008).…”