The Confidence-accuracy Relationship for Lineup Decisions Holds for the Dutch Identification Procedure

Overview

Journal PLoS One

Specialties General Medicine
Science

Date 2023 Apr 11

PMID 37040385

Authors

Melanie Sauerland

Nina Tupper

Micol Iannuzzi

Adri G van Amelsvoort

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Post-decision confidence from witnesses who make a positive identification decision can serve as a valuable indicator of identification accuracy under certain conditions. International best-practice guidelines therefore recommend asking witnesses to indicate their confidence following a selection from a lineup. Three experiments that used Dutch identification protocols, however, reported no significant post-decision confidence-accuracy association. To examine this conflict between the international and the Dutch literature, we tested the strength of the post-decision confidence-accuracy relationship for lineups that followed Dutch protocol in two ways: we conducted an experiment and re-analyzed two experiments that implemented Dutch lineup protocols. As expected, the post-decision confidence-accuracy relationship was strong for positive identifications and weak for negative identification decisions in our experiment. The re-analysis of the pre-existing data showed a strong effect for positive identification decisions of participants up to the age of 40 years. For exploratory purposes, we also tested the confidence-accuracy relationship between lineup administrators' perception of witnesses' confidence and eyewitness identification accuracy. In our experiment, the relationship was strong for choosers and weak for nonchoosers. The re-analysis of pre-existing data showed no correlation between confidence and accuracy, unless we excluded adults over 40 of age. We recommend adapting the Dutch identification guidelines to reflect the current and previous findings on the post-decision confidence-accuracy relationship.

References

Faul F, Erdfelder E, Buchner A, Lang A . Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behav Res Methods. 2009; 41(4):1149-60. DOI: 10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149. View

Wells G, Yang Y, Smalarz L . Eyewitness identification: Bayesian information gain, base-rate effect equivalency curves, and reasonable suspicion. Law Hum Behav. 2015; 39(2):99-122. DOI: 10.1037/lhb0000125. View

Clark S, Howell R, Davey S . Regularities in eyewitness identification. Law Hum Behav. 2007; 32(3):187-218. DOI: 10.1007/s10979-006-9082-4. View

Charman S, Wells G, Joy S . The dud effect: adding highly dissimilar fillers increases confidence in lineup identifications. Law Hum Behav. 2011; 35(6):479-500. DOI: 10.1007/s10979-010-9261-1. View

Dobolyi D, Dodson C . Actual vs. perceived eyewitness accuracy and confidence and the featural justification effect. J Exp Psychol Appl. 2018; 24(4):543-563. DOI: 10.1037/xap0000182. View

Fitzgerald R, Price H . Eyewitness identification across the life span: A meta-analysis of age differences. Psychol Bull. 2015; 141(6):1228-65. DOI: 10.1037/bul0000013. View

Keast A, Brewer N, Wells G . Children's metacognitive judgments in an eyewitness identification task. J Exp Child Psychol. 2007; 97(4):286-314. DOI: 10.1016/j.jecp.2007.01.007. View

Davis S, Peterson D . Simulated viewing distance impairs the confidence-accuracy relationship for long, but not moderate distances: support for a model incorporating the role of feature ambiguity. Cogn Res Princ Implic. 2022; 7(1):55. PMC: 9240149. DOI: 10.1186/s41235-022-00406-5. View

Sauer J, Brewer N, Zweck T, Weber N . The effect of retention interval on the confidence-accuracy relationship for eyewitness identification. Law Hum Behav. 2009; 34(4):337-47. DOI: 10.1007/s10979-009-9192-x. View

10.

Giacona A, Lampinen J, Anastasi J . Estimator variables can matter even for high-confidence lineup identifications made under pristine conditions. Law Hum Behav. 2021; 45(3):256-270. DOI: 10.1037/lhb0000381. View

11.

Colloff M, Wade K, Wixted J, Maylor E . A signal-detection analysis of eyewitness identification across the adult lifespan. Psychol Aging. 2017; 32(3):243-258. DOI: 10.1037/pag0000168. View

12.

Wixted J, Mickes L, Dunn J, Clark S, Wells W . Estimating the reliability of eyewitness identifications from police lineups. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015; 113(2):304-9. PMC: 4720310. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1516814112. View

13.

Palmer M, Brewer N, Weber N, Nagesh A . The confidence-accuracy relationship for eyewitness identification decisions: Effects of exposure duration, retention interval, and divided attention. J Exp Psychol Appl. 2013; 19(1):55-71. DOI: 10.1037/a0031602. View

14.

Wixted J, Wells G . The Relationship Between Eyewitness Confidence and Identification Accuracy: A New Synthesis. Psychol Sci Public Interest. 2017; 18(1):10-65. DOI: 10.1177/1529100616686966. View

15.

Sauerland M, Sagana A, Sporer S, Wixted J . Decision time and confidence predict choosers' identification performance in photographic showups. PLoS One. 2018; 13(1):e0190416. PMC: 5773080. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0190416. View

16.

Sauerland M, Sporer S . Fast and confident: postdicting eyewitness identification accuracy in a field study. J Exp Psychol Appl. 2009; 15(1):46-62. DOI: 10.1037/a0014560. View

17.

Lilienfeld S, Ritschel L, Jay Lynn S, Cautin R, Latzman R . Why many clinical psychologists are resistant to evidence-based practice: root causes and constructive remedies. Clin Psychol Rev. 2013; 33(7):883-900. DOI: 10.1016/j.cpr.2012.09.008. View

18.

Wells G, Kovera M, Douglass A, Brewer N, Meissner C, Wixted J . Policy and procedure recommendations for the collection and preservation of eyewitness identification evidence. Law Hum Behav. 2020; 44(1):3-36. DOI: 10.1037/lhb0000359. View

19.

Dunning D, Perretta S . Automaticity and eyewitness accuracy: a 10- to 12-second rule for distinguishing accurate from inaccurate positive identifications. J Appl Psychol. 2002; 87(5):951-62. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.87.5.951. View

20.

Brackmann N, Sauerland M, Otgaar H . Developmental trends in lineup performance: Adolescents are more prone to innocent bystander misidentifications than children and adults. Mem Cognit. 2018; 47(3):428-440. DOI: 10.3758/s13421-018-0877-6. View