Eyewitness memory: Balancing the accuracy, precision and quantity of information through metacognitive monitoring and control

The enhanced cognitive interview: expressions of uncertainty, motivation and its relation with report accuracy

“…We found that participants were capable of spontaneously distinguish more reliable information ('certainties') from less reliable information ('uncertainties'). Our results are supported by previous findings suggesting that witnesses are able to use several metacognitive techniques to monitor their own report (Allwood et al, 2007;Evans & Fisher, 2010;Koriat & Goldsmith, 1996;Roberts & Higham, 2002;Sniezek & Buckley, 1991). However, to our knowledge, this is the first study to reveal that witnesses are able to spontaneously perform real-time memory monitoring while recalling information in an interview setting.…”

“…It could be very valuable if it could be determined which of the recalled information is more likely to be correct and which may be incorrect. One of the most promising methods to achieve this goal could be to use metacognitive techniques for monitoring recall (Evans & Fisher, 2010).…”

“…Other studies (Evans & Fisher, 2010;Koriat & Goldsmith, 1996) suggest that witnesses can improve their accuracy by using other metacognitive control techniques, namely exercising 'report option' or adjusting 'report precision'. Exercising 'report option' refers to giving witnesses an opportunity to withhold information.…”

“…We established three main hypotheses: (1) uncertainties' will be less accurate than 'certainties', because participants will be able to monitor the information they are providing homogeneously throughout the interview (Allwood, Ask, & Granhag, 2007;Evans & Fisher, 2010;Koriat & Goldsmith, 1996;Roberts & Higham, 2002). As a result, removing 'uncertainties' from the report will increase accuracy; (2) The ECI superiority effect over a SI (in terms of quantity of information) does not affect other parameters, such as the proportion of 'uncertainties' or, as several studies suggest (Aschermann, Mantwill, & Köhnken, 1991;Dando & Milne, 2010;Rivard, Fisher, Robertson, & Mueller, 2014), report accuracy.…”

Regulating accuracy on university tests with the plurality option

“…Research on the grain-size option has been narrowly focused in that the materials used have been restricted to quantitative questions involving numeric answers (e.g., age, time, distance, or height; Goldsmith et al, 2002) or gradients (e.g., dark color versus navy blue; Weber & Brewer, 2008; although see Evans & Fisher, 2011). In response to this limitation, Luna, Higham, and MartinLuengo (2011) (see also Luna & Martin-Luengo, in press) investigated a means for regulating accuracy that is closely related to the grain-size option but which better lends itself to situations in which there are qualitatively different candidate answers to contend with.…”