The eyewitness post-identification feedback effect: What is the function of flexible confidence estimates for autobiographical events?

Applied Cognitive Psychology

Volumn 23, Issue 8, 2009, Pages 1153-1163

  Wells, Gary L ^a   Quinlivan, Deah S ^a  

^a IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL MEMORY; COGNITION; CRIME; DECISION MAKING; FEEDBACK SYSTEM; HUMAN; MEMORY; MENTAL FUNCTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RECALL; WITNESS;

EID: 70449371315     PISSN: 08884080     EISSN: 10990720     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/acp.1616     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Baddeley, A. (1988). But what the hell is it for? In M. M. Gruneberg, P. E. Morris, & R. N. Sykes (Eds.), Practical aspects of memory, Vol. 1: Memory in everyday life (pp. 3-18) New York: John Wiley & Sons.
2. Baumeister, R. F., & Leary,M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497-529.
3. 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, 581-594.
4. Bradfield, A. L.,Wells, G. L., & Olson, E. A. (2002). The damaging effect of confirming feedback on the relation between eyewitness certainty and accuracy. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 87, 112-120.
5. Brewer, N., Keast, A., & Rishworth, A. (2002). Improving the confidence-accuracy relation in eyewitness identification: Evidence from correlation and calibration. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 8, 44-56.
6. 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, 11-30.
7. Charman, S. D., & Wells, G. L. (2008). Can eyewitnesses correct for external influences on their lineup identifications? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 14, 5-20.
8. Dixon, S., & Memon, A. (2005). The effect of post-identification feedback on the recall of crime and perpetrator details. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 935-951.
9. Douglass, A. B., & McQuiston-Surrett, D. (2006). Post-identification feedback: Exploring the effects of sequential photospreads and eyewitnesses' awareness of the identification task. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 859-869.
10. Douglass, A. B., & Steblay, N. (2006). Memory distortion in eyewitnesses: A meta-analysis of the post-identification feedback effect. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 859-869.
11. Gigerenzer, G., Todd, P. M., & the ABC Research Group. (1999). Simple heuristics that make us smart. New York: Oxford University Press.
12. Hafstad, G. S., Memon, A., & Logie, R. (2004). Post-identification feedback, confidence and recollections of witnessing conditions in child witnesses. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18, 901-912.
13. Hutchinson, J. M. C., & Gigerenzer, G. (2005). Simple heuristics and rules of thumb: Where psychologists and behavioural biologists might meet. Behavioural Processes, 69, 97-124.
14. Innocence Project. (2009). http://www.innocenceproject.org/ Last visited February 1, 2009.
15. Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Erlbaum.
16. Lampinen, J. M., Scott, J., Pratt, D., Leding, J. K., & Arnal, J. D. (2006). 'Good, you identified the suspect... But please ignore this feedback': Can warnings eliminate the effects of post-identification feedback? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 1037-1056.
17. Leary,M. R., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). The nature and function of self-esteem: Sociometer theory. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 32, pp. 1-62). San Diego: Academic Press.
18. Manson v. Braithwaite. 432 U.S. 98 (1977).
19. Neuschatz, J. S., Lawson, D. S., Fairless, A. H., Powers, R. A., Neuschatz, J. S., Goodsell, C. A., et al. (2007). The mitigating effects of suspicion on post-identification feedback and on retrospective eyewitness memory. Law and Human Behavior, 31, 231-247.
20. Neuschatz, J. S., Preston, E. L., Burkett, A. D., Toglia, M. P., Lampinen, J. M., Neuschatz, J. S., et al. (2005). The effects of post-identification feedback and age on retrospective eyewitness memory. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 435-453.
21. Quinlivan, D. S., Neuschatz, J. S., Jimenez, A., Cling, A. D., Douglass, A. B., & Goodsell, C. A. (2009). Do prophylactics prevent inflation? Post-identification feedback and the effectiveness of procedures to protect against confidence-inflation in earwitnesses. Law & Human Behavior, 33, 111-121.
22. Reyna, V. F., Mills, B., Estrada, S., & Brainerd, C. J. (2006). False memory in children: Data, theory, and legal implications. In M. P. Toglia, J. D. Read, D. F. Ross, & R. C. L. Lindsay (Eds.), The handbook of eyewitness psychology: Memory for events (pp. 473-510). New York: Cambridge University Press.
23. Semmler, C., & Brewer, N. (2006). Postidentification feedback effects on face recognition confidence: Evidence for metacognitive influences. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 895-916.
24. Semmler, C., Brewer, N., &Wells, G. L. (2004). Effects of postidentification feedback on eyewitness identification and nonidentification. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 334-346.
25. Skagerberg, E.M. (2007). Co-witness feedback in line-ups. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 489-497.
26. Sporer, S., Penrod, S., Read, D., & Cutler, B. L. (1995). Choosing, confidence, and accuracy: A metaanalysis of the confidence-accuracy relation in eyewitness identification studies. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 315-327.
27. Steblay, N.M. (1992). A meta-analytic review of the weapon focus effect. Law and Human Behavior, 16, 413-424.
28. Wells, G. L. (2006). Eyewitness identification: Systemic reforms. Wisconsin Law Review, 2006, 615-643.
29. Wells, G. L., & Bradfield, A. L. (1998). "Good, you identified the suspect:" Feedback to eyewitnesses distorts their reports of the witnessing experience. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 360-376.
30. Wells, G. L., & Bradfield, A. L. (1999). Distortions in eyewitnesses' recollections: Can the postidentification feedback effect be moderated? Psychological Science, 10, 138-144.
31. Wells, G. L., Olson, E. A., & Charman, S. D. (2003). Distorted retrospective eyewitness reports as functions of feedback and delay. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 9, 42-52.
32. Wells, G. L., & Quinlivan, D. S. (2009). Suggestive eyewitness identification procedures and the Supreme Court's reliability test in light of eyewitness science: 30 years later. Law and Human Behavior, 33, 1-24.
33. Wright, D. B., & Skagerberg, E. M. (2007). Post-identification feedback affects real eyewitnesses. Psychological Science, 18, 172-178.