Cueing confidence in eyewitness identifications: Influence of biased lineup instructions and pre-identification memory feedback under varying lineup conditions.

Abstract

Students watched a theft video, attempted an identification from a thief-present or thief-absent lineup under unbiased or biased instructions, and rated identification confidence. In Experiment 1, the participants received (bogus) positive, negative, or no pre-identification feedback about a recall test. Biased instructions and positive feedback increased confidence and ratings of eyewitnessing conditions. In Experiment 2, biased instructions increased confidence unless the thief was absent and lineup members were similar, where they decreased confidence. According to the cue-belief model, biased instructions send a positive accuracy cue regarding the most familiar-looking lineup member. If none stands out, instructions conflict with an inclination to reject the lineup. Feedback may create a belief about memory quality that is a cue regarding likely recognition accuracy.

Change detection inflates confidence on a subsequent recognition task

“…In one study (Gabbert, Memon, & Wright, 2007) participants who received feedback suggesting that the conditions in which encoding occurred were favourable were more confident in their memory than were participants who received feedback suggesting that the same encoding conditions were unfavourable. Similar results have been found by Leippe and colleagues (Leippe, Eisenstadt, & Rauch, 2009;Leippe, Eisenstadt, Rauch, & Stambush, 2006), who manipulated feedback about memory reports and found perceptions of memory accuracy influenced line-up identification confidence. Although the reliability of their results differed depending on how feedback was manipulated, positive feedback generally led to higher confidence than negative or no feedback.…”

The Mystery Man Can Help Reduce False Identification for Child Witnesses: Evidence from Video Line‐ups

“…Therefore, these findings lend strength to the suggestion that there may be situations where confidence can be a reliable indicator of accuracy, if taken directly after an identification and prior to any feedback (see also Brewer, 2006;Sauer et al, 2010). However, practitioners should also be aware that confident responses are not always accurate (see Leippe et al, 2009) and that confident inaccurate witnesses can often appear as believable as accurate witnesses (Leippe et al, 1992).…”

“…Some researchers recommend that a clear statement of confidence is taken from the witness at the time of the identification (Valentine et al, 2007). Other researchers suggest that confidence is not necessarily a good indicator of accuracy (Leippe, Eisenstadt, & Rauch, 2009) and that confident inaccurate witnesses can often appear to be as believable as accurate witnesses (Leippe et al, 1992). Additionally, research has suggested that there is only a confidence-accuracy relationship with correct identifications from TP line-ups and no relationship with correct rejections from TA line-ups (Brewer & Palmer, 2010).…”

Do pre‐admonition suggestions moderate the effect of unbiased lineup instructions?

“…Studies by Leippe and colleagues (Leippe, Eisenstadt, & Rauch, 2009; Leippe, Eisenstadt, Rauch, & Stambush, 2006) examined the influence of pre‐admonition feedback and provided a theoretical framework for understandings its effects. Leippe et al (2006) designed pre‐identification to make the participant witness believe he or she had a memory about a witnessed event that was similar or dissimilar to the memory of a co‐eyewitness.…”