Confidence and accuracy in the recall of deceptive and nondeceptive sentences

Brewer, William F.; Sampaio, Cristina; Barlow, Margaret

doi:10.1016/j.jml.2005.01.017

Cited by 53 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While Price's and Stone's (2004) declaration of the existence of a heuristic confidence judgment is in accord with some theories (e.g., Gigerenzer et al, 1991), evidence of overconfidence yielding highest credibility or accuracy contradicts some other findings (e.g., Brewer et al, 2005;Cramer et al, 2009;Sporer, Penrod, Read, & Cutler, 1995 Slovenko (1999) are narrowly applied and reflect retrospective judgments of certainty that are byproducts of behavior rather than causes.…”

Section: Conclusion From Existing Confidence Literaturementioning

confidence: 76%

“…For example, Brewer, Sampaio, and Barlow (2005) devised two studies to investigate the "metamemory theory of confidence" (p. 618). In defining their theory, authors proposed a definition in which confidence judgments are based on metacognitive thoughts concerning external confidence cues and subsequent perceptions about their accuracy in recall.…”

Section: Confidence-accuracy Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Witness self‐efficacy: Development and validation of the construct

Cramer

Neal

DeCoster

et al. 2010

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study used a Self-Efficacy Theory (SET; Bandura, 1977Bandura, , 1986 framework to address the need for an outcome measure in witness preparation training. The construct of Witness Self-Efficacy, broadly defined as a witness's perceived ability to testify in court, was developed drawing largely on existing self-efficacy literature. The goal of the study was to establish initial psychometric properties for the Witness Self-Efficacy Scale (WSES).Participants acting either as mock witnesses or jurors took part in a two-phase study.First, 41 mock witnesses were asked to provide a written account of being falsely accused of an act. They were then briefly deposed about the account, and completed the WSES and construct validity questionnaires. Mock witnesses finally testified under cross-examination from a mock attorney about the accusations. In the second portion, a total of 290 mock jurors (six to eight per group) observed videotaped testimonies of participants from phase one. Mock jurors then provided predictive validity ratings of witness credibility, believability, innocence likelihood, efficacy, and agreement with testimony.Bi-variate correlation analyses showed that the WSES was significantly positively related with general self-efficacy, social self-efficacy, and general self-confidence. The WSES was significantly negatively related to introversion. The scale displayed non-significant relations with social desirability, depression, self-esteem, and innocence expectancy. Multivariate regression analyses showed that the scale failed to predict any of the primary mock juror ratings.Follow-up multivariate regression analyses showed that mock juror ratings of witness confidence iii and the WSES predicted dependent measures, although these independent variables were collinear. Finally, there was an interaction between self and observer ratings of the WSES as it predicted witness credibility.Results are discussed with regard to theoretical and applied implications. Contrary to SET, self-reported WSE appears to be largely correlated with confidence and fails to predict outcomes on its own. Concerning witness preparation, the WSES possesses solid construct validity and reliability, but requires further testing within a witness preparation training model to assess its practical utility. A self-efficacy based method of witness preparation is proposed as a manner of continued research using the WSES.

show abstract

Section: Conclusion From Existing Confidence Literaturementioning

confidence: 76%

Section: Confidence-accuracy Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Witness self‐efficacy: Development and validation of the construct

Cramer

Neal

DeCoster

et al. 2010

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We examined this hypothesis by contrasting data from a simple recognition procedure with data from a forced-choice procedure. Although researchers have speculated about the unconscious reconstructive processing hypothesis (e.g., Brewer & Sampaio, 2006;Brewer et al, 2005;Koriat, 1995;Leippe, 1980;Zechmeister & Nyberg, 1982), this article provides a direct empirical test of the hypothesis. Our data indicate that in a simple recognition task, participants applied their metamemory beliefs inappropriately, producing memory errors with high confidence.…”

Section: Forced-choice Recognition Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…We have proposed a metamemory approach to the study of confidence (Brewer & Sampaio, 2006Brewer, Sampaio, & Barlow, 2005) in which we view confidence as an inferential process based on cues that are available at the time of the judgment and on metamemory beliefs about how these cues relate to accuracy. More specifically, we think that the main sources of information on which memory confidence is based are (1) the process used in a memory task (e.g., recall vs. familiarity judgments) along with the products of the memory task (e.g., an image) and (2) the metamemory beliefs about how different memory processes and products relate to memory accuracy (e.g., the belief that memory information in recollective recall is likely to be accurate).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of unconscious memory errors in judgments of confidence for sentence recognition

Sampaio

Brewer

2009

Memory & Cognition

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Additionally, multiple recollection attempts, memory vividness, access to corroborating detail, (Perfect & Hollins, 1999), as well as the completeness and amount of information retrieved (Brewer, Sampaio, & Barlow, 2005;Koriat, Lichtenstein, & Fischhoff, 1980), all have been shown to influence confidence. Just as retrieval fluency has been shown to be an unreliable index of accuracy, under certain circumstances these other cues also can inappropriately inform confidence in responses.…”

Section: Retrieval Fluency Affects Confidencementioning

confidence: 99%