How potential jurors evaluate eyewitness confidence and decision time statements across identification procedures and for different eyewitness decisions

References

• Beaudry, J. L., Lindsay, R. C., Leach, A. M., Mansour, J. K., Bertrand, M. I., & Kalmet, N. (2015). The effect of evidence type, identification accuracy, line-up presentation, and line-up administration on observers’ perceptions of eyewitnesses. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 20(2), 343–364. https://doi.org/10.1111/lcrp.12030
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Behrman, B. W., & Richards, R. E. (2005). Suspect/foil identification in actual crimes and in the laboratory: A reality monitoring analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 29(3), 279–301. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-005-3617-y
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benton, T. R., Ross, D. F., Bradshaw, E, Thomas, W. N., & Bradshaw, G. S. (2006). Eyewitness memory is still not common sense: Comparing jurors, judges and law enforcement to eyewitness experts. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20(1), 115–129. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1171
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bradfield, A. L., & Wells, G. L. (2000). The perceived validity of eyewitness identification testimony: A test of the five Biggers criteria. Law and Human Behavior, 24(5), 581–594. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005523129437
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brewer, N., & Burke, A. (2002). Effects of testimonial inconsistencies and eyewitness confidence on mock-juror judgments. Law and Human Behavior, 26(3), 353–364. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015380522722
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brewer, N., & Doyle, J. (2021). Changing the face of police lineups: Delivering more information from witnesses. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 10, 180–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2020.12.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brewer, N., & Wells, G. L. (2006). The confidence-accuracy relationship in eyewitness identification: Effects of lineup instructions, foil similarity, and target-absent base rates. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 12(1), 11–30. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-898X.12.1.11
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cash, D. K., & Lane, S. M. (2017). Context influences interpretation of eyewitness confidence statements. Law and Human Behavior, 41(2), 180–190. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000216
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Colloff, M. F., Wade, K. A., & Strange, D. (2016). Unfair lineups make witnesses more likely to confuse innocent and guilty suspects. Psychological Science, 27(9), 1227–1239. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797616655789
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cutler, B. L., Dexter, H. R., & Penrod, S. D. (1990). Nonadversarial methods for sensitizing jurors to eyewitness evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20(14), 1197–1207. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1990.tb00400.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cutler, B. L., & Penrod, S. D. (1995). Mistaken identification: The eyewitness, psychology and the law. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Dexter, H. R. (1990). Juror sensitivity to eyewitness identification evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 14(2), 185–191. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01062972
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Stuve, T. E. (1988). Juror decision making in eyewitness identification cases. Law and Human Behavior, 12(1), 41–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01064273
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Devenport, J. L., Penrod, S. D., & Cutler, B. L. (1997). Eyewitness identification evidence: Evaluation commonsense evaluations. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 3(2-3), 338–361. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.3.2-3.338
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Devenport, J. L., Stinson, V., Cutler, B. L., & Kravitz, D. A. (2002). How effective are the cross-examination and expert testimony safeguards? Jurors’ perceptions of the suggestiveness and fairness of biased lineup procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(6), 1042–1054. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.6.1042
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dobolyi, D. G., & Dodson, C. S. (2018). Actual vs. perceived eyewitness accuracy and confidence and the featural justification effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 24(4), 543–563. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000182
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dodson, C. S., & Dobolyi, D. G. (2016). Confidence and eyewitness identifications: The cross-race effect, decision time and accuracy. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 30(1), 113–125. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3178
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dodson, C. S., & Dobolyi, D. G. (2017). Judging guilt and accuracy: Highly confident eyewitnesses are discounted when they provide featural justifications, Psychology, Crime & Law, 23(5), 487–508. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2017.1284220
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dodson, C. S., Garrett, B. L., Kafadar, K., & Yaffe, J. (2020). Eyewitness identification speed: Slow identifications from highly confident eyewitnesses hurt perceptions of their testimony. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 10, 259–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2020.08.015
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Douven, I. (2018). A Bayesian perspective on Likert scales and central tendency. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25(3), 1203–1211. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-017-1344-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dunning, D., & Stern, L. B. (1994). Distinguishing accurate from inaccurate eyewitness identifications via inquiries about decision processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(5), 818–835. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.5.818
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garrett, B. L., Liu, A., Kafadar, K., Yaffe, J., & Dodson, C. S. (2020). Factoring the role of eyewitness evidence in the courtroom. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 17(3), 556–579. https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.12259
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Götz, F. M., Gosling, S. D., & Rentfrow, P. J. (2022). Small effects: The indispensable foundation for a cumulative psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(1), 205–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620984483
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grabman, J. H., Cash, D. K., Slane, C. R., & Dodson, C. S. (2021 June 3). Improving the interpretation of verbal eyewitness confidence statements by distinguishing perceptions of certainty from those of accuracy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000362. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 34081495
   Google Scholar
• Grabman, J. H., Dobolyi, D. G., Berelovich, N. L., & Dodson, C. S. (2019). Predicting high confidence errors in eyewitness memory: The role of face recognition ability, decision-time, and justifications. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 8(2), 233–243. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0101835
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grabman, J. H., & Dodson, C. S. (2019). Prior knowledge influences interpretations of eyewitness confidence statements: ‘The witness picked the suspect, they must be 100% sure%. Psychology, Crime & Law, 25(1), 50–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2018.1497167
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greene, E. (1988). Judge’s instruction on eyewitness testimony: Evaluation and Revision 1’. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18(3), 252–276. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1988.tb00016.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gronlund, S. D., Carlson, C. A., Neuschatz, J. S., Goodsell, C. A., Wetmore, S. A., Wooten, A., & Graham, M. (2012). Showups versus lineups: An evaluation using ROC analysis. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 1(4), 221–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2012.09.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hicks, J. M., & Clark, S. E. (2020). Persuasiveness and sensitivity to witnessing conditions depend on how testimony is presented. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 35(1), 52–61. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3737
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Innocence Project. (2021). Eyewitness misidentification. http://www.innocenceproject.org.
   Google Scholar
• Jones, A. M., Bergold, A. N., Dillon, M. K., & Penrod, S. D. (2017). Comparing the effectiveness of henderson instructions and expert testimony: Which safeguard improves jurors’ evaluations of eyewitness evidence? Journal of Experimental Criminology, 13(1), 29–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-016-9279-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones, A. M., Bergold, A. N., & Penrod, S. (2020). Improving juror sensitivity to specific eyewitness factors: Judicial instructions fail the test. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 27(3), 366–385. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2020.1719379
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jun, E., Hsieh, G., & Reinecke, K. (2017). Types of motivation affect study selection, attention, and dropouts in online experiments. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 1(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1145/3134691
   Google Scholar
• Key, K. N., Wetmore, S. A., Neuschatz, J. S., Gronlund, S. D., Cash, D. K., & Lane, S. (2017). Line-up fairness affects postdictor validity and ‘don’t know’ responses. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 31(1), 59–68. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3302
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malpass, R. S., & Devine, P. G. (1981). Eyewitness identification: Lineup instructions and the absence of the offender. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66(4), 482–489. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.66.4.482
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malpass, R. S., & Devine, P. G. (1983). Measuring the fairness of eyewitness identification in lineups. In R. S. Malpass, & P. G. Devine (Eds.), Evaluating witness evidence (pp. 81–102). Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Meade, A. W., & Craig, S. B. (2012). Identifying careless responses in survey data. Psychological Methods, 17(3), 437–455. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028085
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meissner, C. A., Brigham, J. C., & Butz, D. A. (2005). Memory for own- and other-race faces: A dual-process approach. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19(5), 545–567. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1097
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neal, T. M., Christiansen, A., Bornstein, B. H., & Robicheaux, T. R. (2012). The effects of mock jurors’ beliefs about eyewitness performance on trial judgments. Psychology, Crime & Law, 18(1), 49–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2011.587815
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pica, E., Sheahan, C. L., Pozzulo, J., Vallano, J., & Pettalia, J. (2019). The influence of familiar and confident eyewitnesses on mock jurors’ judgments. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 34(4), 351–361. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-018-9306-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Police Executive Research Forum [PERF]. (2013). A national survey of eyewitness identification processes in law enforcement agencies. National Institute of Justice. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/242617.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Read, J. D., & Desmarais, S. L. (2009). Lay knowledge of eyewitness issues: A Canadian evaluation. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23(3), 301–326. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1459
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sauerland, M., & Sporer, S. L. (2009). Fast and confident: Postdicting eyewitness identification accuracy in a field study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 15(1), 46–62. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014560
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Slane, C. R., & Dodson, C. S. (2019). Two eyewitnesses are more persuasive than one except when they remember a suspect’s feature. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 8(1), 60–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2018.12.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sporer, S. L. (1992). Post-dicting eyewitness accuracy: Confidence, decision-times and person descriptions of choosers and non-choosers. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22(2), 157–180. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420220205
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sporer, S. L. (1993). Eyewitness identification accuracy, confidence, and decision times in simultaneous and sequential lineups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 22–33. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.1.22
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sporer, S. L., Penrod, S., Read, D., & Cutler, B. (1995). Choosing, confidence, and accuracy: A meta-analysis of the confidence^accuracy relation in eyewitness identification studies. Psychological Bulletin, 118(3), 315–327. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.118.3.315
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stevens, S. S. (1971). Issues in psychophysical measurement. Psychological Review, 78(5), 426–450. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0031324
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tredoux, C. G. (1998). Statistical inference on measures of lineup fairness. Law and Human Behavior, 22(2), 217–237. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025746220886
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wells, G. L., Kovera, M. B., Douglass, A. B., Brewer, N., Meissner, C. A., & Wixted, J. T. (2020). Policy and procedure recommendations for the collection and preservation of eyewitness identification evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 44(1), 3–36. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000359
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wells, G. L., & Olson, E. A. (2003). Eyewitness testimony. Annual Review of Psychology, 54(1), 277–295. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145028
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wells, G. L., Yang, Y., & Smalarz, L. (2015). Eyewitness identification: Bayesian information gain, base-rate effect equivalency curves, and reasonable suspicion. Law and Human Behavior, 39(2), 99–122. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000125
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wetmore, S. A., Neuschatz, J. S., Gronlund, S. D., Wooten, A., Goodsell, C. A., & Carlson, C. A. (2015). Effect of retention interval on showup and lineup performance. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 4(1), 8–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2014.07.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wixted, J. T., & Wells, G. L. (2017). The relationship between eyewitness confidence and identification accuracy: A new synthesis. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 18(1), 10–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100616686966
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wright, D. B. (2007). The impact of eyewitness identifications from simultaneous and sequential lineups. Memory (Hove, England), 15(7), 746–754. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210701508401
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar