Effects of different types of forensic information on eyewitness’ memory and confidence accuracy

Abstract

This study investigated eyewitnesses' memory and confidence accuracy for action information (what happened at the crime scene), and detail information (descriptions of persons, objects, time and place). In Experiment 1, 89 participants watched a film and participated in one of four conditions: Laboratory discussion, Family discussion, Retell and Control, the first three with five meetings each. Three weeks later all participants open free recalled the events, and confidence judged their answers. The participants showed better free recall and confidence accuracy for action than for detail information. Participants in the two discussion conditions and in the Retell condition recalled more items and those in the Lab-discussion and Retell conditions more correct items for action information, than those in Control group. However, the four conditions did not differ for proportion correct of all action items recalled and confidence accuracy for action items. In brief, Experiment 1 showed that witness discussions and retellings of the experienced event with others improved recall for action information but had had no, or small, effects on confidence accuracy. Experiment 2 investigated recall and confidence accuracy performance for action and detail information using focused questions. Seventy-seven participants watched a film, answered and confidence judged 63 questions about action and detail information about the events. Again, participants showed better memory and confidence accuracy for action information. Overall, the results indicate that, for both free recall and focused questions, witnesses' recall and confidence accuracy is better for action information than for detail information, thus extra precaution is needed in the forensic system when detail information from witnesses is considered.

Criteria-Based Content Analysis (CBCA) reality criteria in adults: A meta-analytic review

“…First, previous publications have biased the results in that the non-significant results or predictably inefficacious categories were eliminated (favouring the validation of the Undeutsch Hypothesis). Second, the feigning methodology (experimental studies) had no proven external validity ( Sarwar, Allwood, & Innes-Ker, 2014 ), but only ‘face validity’ ( Konecni & Ebbesen, 1992 ). Third, for some experimental literature, statements are insufficient material for reality content analysis ( Köhnken, 2004 ), which favours the rejection of the Undeutsch Hypothesis.…”

Self-delivered misinformation - Merging the choice blindness and misinformation effect paradigms

“…In the commotion the older, glasses-wearing man pulls out a gun, whilst the younger, cap-wearing man drags the woman into their car before they drive off from the scene. The film has been used in previous eyewitness research [ 49 – 51 ].…”

Inconsistent reporting of life experiences: What people think and how they explain it?

“…It was not a surprising result: usually participants claimed that they never thought about a certain experience before and then when asked about it they remember or they are not very confident about their memories. Currently, there are a couple of reviews about autobiographical memory (e.g., Fivush, 2011;Koriat et al, 2000); nevertheless, as Hardt and Rutter (2004) also noticed, it is still a major (devaluated) challenge regarding the reports of life experiences, considering that most evidence relies on experimental studies (e.g., Sarwar et al, 2014). Our participants also emphasized a quite common variable in this field of research, namely mood.…”