Extracting the truth from conflicting eyewitness reports: A formal modeling approach

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied

Volumn 18, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 390-403

  de Puiseau, Berenike Waubert ^a,b   Aßfalg, André ^b   Erdfelder, Edgar ^b   Bernstein, Daniel M ^c  

^a MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR RESEARCH ON COLLECTIVE GOODS   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MANNHEIM   (Germany)

^c KWANTLEN POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Cultural consensus theory; Eyewitness memory; Eyewitness testimony; Formal modeling; General Condorcet model

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CRIME; HUMAN; RECALL; THEORETICAL MODEL;

CRIME; HUMANS; MENTAL RECALL; MODELS, THEORETICAL;

EID: 84874683350     PISSN: 1076898X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/a0029801     Document Type: Article

References (87)

1. Allport, G., & Postman, L. J. (1947). The psychology of rumor. New York, NY: H. Holt.
2. Aβfalg, A., & Erdfelder, E. (2012). CAML Maximum likelihood consensus analysis. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 189-201. doi:10.3758/ s13428-011-0138-0
3. Batchelder, W. H., Kumbasar, E., & Boyd, J. P. (1997). Consensus analysis of three-way social network data. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 22, 29-58. doi:10.1080/0022250X.1997.9990193
4. Batchelder, W. H., & Romney, A. K. (1986). The statistical analysis of a general Condorcet model for dichotomous choice situations. In B. Grofman & G. Owen (Eds.), Information pooling and group decision making (pp. 103-112). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
5. Batchelder, W. H., & Romney, A. K. (1988). Test theory without an answer key. Psychometrika, 53, 71-92. doi:10.1007/BF02294195
6. Batchelder, W. H., & Romney, A. K. (1989). New results in test theory without an answer key. In E. E. Roskam (Ed.), Mathematical psychology in progress (pp. 229-248). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
7. Batchelder, W. H., Strashny, A., & Romney, A. K. (2010). Cultural consensus theory: Aggregating continuous responses in a finite interval. Advances in Social Computing, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 6007, 98-107. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-12079-4_15
8. Bernstein, D. M., & Loftus, E. F. (2009). How to tell if a particular memory is true or false. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 370-374. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01140.x
9. Bjork, R. A. (1973). Why mathematical models? American Psychologist, 28, 426-433. doi:10.1037/h0034623
10. Bornstein, B. H., & Meissner, C. A. (2008). Basic and applied issues in eyewitness research: A Münsterberg centennial retrospective. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 733-736. doi:10.1002/acp.1478
11. Brewer, N., & Palmer, M. A. (2010). Eyewitness identification tests. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 15, 77-96. doi:10.1348/ 135532509X414765
12. Brewer, N., & Weber, N. (2008). Eyewitness confidence and latency: Indices of memory processes not just markers of accuracy. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 827-840. doi:10.1002/acp.1486
13. 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. doi:10.1037/1076-898X.12.1.11
14. Brewer, N., & Wells, G. L. (2011). Eyewitness identification. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 24-27. doi:10.1177/ 0963721410389169
15. Bröder, A., & Schütz, J. (2009). Recognition ROCs are curvilinear-or are they? On premature arguments against the two-high-threshold model of recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 587-606. doi:10.1037/a0015279
16. Campos, L., & Alonso-Quecuty, M. L. (1999). The cognitive interview: Much more than simply try again. Psychology, Crime & Law, 5, 47-59. doi:10.1080/10683169908414993
17. Carlin, B. P., & Louis, T. A. (1996). Bayes and empirical Bayes methods for data analysis. London, UK: Chapman & Hall.
18. Clark, S. E. (2003). A memory and decision model for eyewitness identification. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 629-654. doi:10.1002/acp .891
19. Clark, S. E. (2008). The importance (necessity) of computational modeling for eyewitness identification research. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 803-813. doi:10.1002/acp.1484
20. Clark, S. E., & Wells, G. L. (2008). On the diagnosticity of multiplewitness identifications. Law and Human Behavior, 32, 406-422. doi: 10.1007/s10979-007-9115-7
21. Crowther, C. S., Batchelder, W. H., & Hu, X. (1995). A measurementtheoretic analysis of the fuzzy logic model of perception. Psychological Review, 102, 396-408. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.102.2.396
22. Dando, C., Wilcock, R., & Milne, R. (2009). The cognitive interview: The efficacy of a modified mental reinstatement of context procedure for frontline police investigators. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 138147. doi:10.1002/acp.1451
23. Deffenbacher, K. A. (2008). Estimating the impact of estimator variables on eyewitness identification: A fruitful marriage of practical problem solving and psychological theorizing. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 815-826. doi:10.1002/acp.1485
24. Dijksterhuis, A., & Van Knippenberg, A. (1995). Memory for stereotypeconsistent and stereotype-inconsistent information as a function of processing pace. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 689-693. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420250607
25. Dripps, D. A. (1999). Miscarriages of justice and the constitution. Buffalo Criminal Law Review, 2, 635-680.
26. Dunn, J. C., & Kirsner, K. (2011). The search for HMAS Sydney II: Analysis and integration of survivor reports. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25, 513-527. doi:10.1002/acp.1735
27. Erdfelder, E., Auer, T.-S., Hilbig, B. E., Aßfalg, A., Moshagen, M., & Nadarevic, L. (2009). Multinomial processing tree models: A review of the literature. Zeitschrift für Psychologie/Journal of Psychology, 217, 108-124. doi:10.1027/0044-3409.217.3.108
28. Erdfelder, E., & Bredenkamp, J. (1998). Recognition of script-typical versus script-atypical information: Effects of cognitive elaboration. Memory & Cognition, 26, 922-938. doi:10.3758/BF03201173
29. Erdfelder, E., Cüpper, L., Auer, T.-S., & Undorf, M. (2007). The fourstates model of memory retrieval experiences. Zeitschrift für Psychologie/Journal of Psychology, 215, 61-71. doi:10.1027/0044-3409.215 .1.61
30. Erdfelder, E., Küpper-Tetzel, C. E., & Mattern, S. D. (2011). Threshold models of recognition and the recognition heuristic. Judgment and Decision Making, 6, 7-22.
31. Farrell, S., & Lewandowsky, S. (2010). Computational models as aids to better reasoning in psychology. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19, 329-335. doi:10.1177/0963721410386677
32. Fischer, G. H., & Molenaar, I. (Eds.). (1995). Rasch models Foundations, recent developments, and applications. New York: Springer.
33. Fisher, R. P., Milne, R., & Bull, R. (2011). Interviewing cooperative witnesses. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 16-19. doi:10.1177/0963721410396826
34. Frenda, S. F., Nichols, R. M., & Loftus, E. F. (2011). Current issues and advances in misinformation research. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 20-23. doi:10.1177/0963721410396620
35. Geiselman, R. E., Fisher, R. P., MacKinnon, D. P., & Holland, H. L. (1985). Eyewitness memory enhancement in the police interview: Cognitive retrieval mnemonics versus hypnosis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 401-412. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.70.2.401
36. Geiselman, R. E., Fisher, R. P., MacKinnon, D. P., & Holland, H. L. (1986). Enhancement of eyewitness memory with the cognitive interview. The American Journal of Psychology, 99, 385-401. doi:10.2307/ 1422492
37. Gelman, A., Meng, X.-L., & Stern, H. (1996). Posterior predictive assessment of model fitness via realized discrepancies. Statistica Sinica, 6, 733-807.
38. Harley, E. M., Dillon, A. M., & Loftus, G. R. (2004). Why it's difficult to see in the fog: How contrast affects visual perception and visual memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 197-231. doi:10.3758/ BF03196564
39. Hilbig, B. E. (2012). How framing statistical statements affects subjective veracity: Validation and application of a multinomial model for judgments of truth. Cognition, 125, 37-48. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2012.06 .009
40. Hintzman, D. L. (1991). Why are formal models useful in psychology? In W. E. Hockley & S. Lewandowsky (Eds.), Relating theory and data: Essays on human memory in honor of Bennet B. Murdock (pp. 39-56). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
41. Hollins, T. S., & Perfect, T. J. (1997). The confidence-accuracy relation in eyewitness event memory: The mixed question type effect. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 2, 205-218. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8333.1997 .tb00344.x
42. Janssen, J., Kirschner, F., Erkens, G., Kirschner, P. A., & Paas, F. (2010). Making the black box of collaborative learning transparent: Combining process-oriented and cognitive load approaches. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 139-154. doi:10.1007/s10648-010-9131-x
43. Karabatsos, G., & Batchelder, W. H. (2003). Markov chain estimation for test theory without an answer key. Psychometrika, 68, 373-389. doi: 10.1007/BF02294733
44. Köhnken, G., Milne, R., Memon, A., & Bull, R. (1999). The cognitive interview: A meta-analysis. Psychology, Crime & Law, 5, 3-27. doi: 10.1080/10683169908414991
45. Lane, S. M., & Meissner, C. A. (2008). A "middle road" approach to bridging the basic-applied divide in eyewitness identification research. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 779-787. doi:10.1002/acp.1482
46. Lindsay, D. S., Read, J. D., & Sharma, K. (1998). Accuracy and confidence in person identification: The relationship is strong with witnessing conditions vary widely. Psychological Science, 9, 215-218. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.00041
47. Lindsay, R. C. L., Wells, G. L., & Rumpel, C. M. (1981). Can people detect eyewitness-identification accuracy within and across situations? Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 79-89. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.66.1.79
48. Loftus, E. F. (1975). Leading questions and the eyewitness report. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 560-572. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(75)90023-7
49. Loftus, E. F. (1996). Eyewitness testimony. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
50. Loftus, E. F., & Palmer, J. C. (1974). Reconstruction of automobile destruction: An example of the interaction between language and memory. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 13, 585-589. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(74)80011-3
51. Luna, K., & Martín-Luengo, B. (2012). Confidence-accuracy calibration with general knowledge and eyewitness memory cued recall questions. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26, 289-295. doi:10.1002/acp.1822
52. Milne, R., & Bull, R. (2002). Back to basics: A componential analysis of the original cognitive interview mnemonics with three age groups. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 16, 743-753. doi:10.1002/acp.825
53. Morris, C. D., Bransford, J. D., & Franks, J. J. (1977). Levels of processing versus transfer appropriate processing. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 16, 519-533. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(77)80016-9
54. Münsterberg, H. (1908). On the witness stand. Essays on psychology and crime. New York, NY: Doubleday, Page.
55. Pansky, A., Koriat, A., & Goldsmith, M. (2005). Eyewitness recall and testimony. In N. Brewer, & K. D. Williams (Eds.), Psychology and law: An empirical perspective (pp. 93-150). New York, NY: Guilford.
56. Paterson, H. M., & Kemp, R. I. (2006). Co-witness talk: A survey of eyewitness discussion. Psychology, Crime & Law, 12, 181-191. doi: 10.1080/10683160512331316334
57. Peters, M. J. V., Jelicic, M., & Merckelbach, H. (2006). When stereotypes backfire: Trying to suppress stereotypes produces false recollections of a crime. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 11, 327-336. doi: 10.1348/135532505X74055
58. President's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy. (1964). Report of the President's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
59. Retrieved from http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/letter.html
60. Rasch, G. (1960). Studies in mathematical psychology: I. Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Oxford, UK: Nielsen & Lydiche.
61. R Development Core Team. (2011). The R-project for statistical comput-ing. Retrieved from http://www.r-project.org/
62. Roebers, C. M. (2002). Confidence judgments in children's and adult's event recall and suggestibility. Developmental Psychology, 38, 1052-1067. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.38.6.1052
63. Romney, A. K. (1999). Culture consensus as a statistical model. Current Anthropology, 40, 103-115. doi:1086/200062
64. Romney, A. K., Batchelder, W. H., & Weller, S. C. (1987). Recent applications of cultural consensus theory. American Behavioral Scien-tist, 31, 163-177. doi:10.1177/000276487031002003
65. Romney, A. K., Weller, S. C., & Batchelder, W. H. (1986). Culture as consensus: A theory of culture and informant accuracy. American An-thropologist, 88, 313-338. doi:10.1525/aa.1986.88.2.02a00020
66. Sauer, J., Brewer, N., Zweck, T., & Weber, N. (2010). The effect of retention interval on the confidence-accuracy relationship for eyewit-ness identification. Law and Human Behavior, 34, 337-347. doi: 10.1007/s10979-009-9192-x
67. Schmechel, R. S., O'Toole, T. P., Easterly, C., & Loftus, E. F. (2006). Beyond the ken? Testing jurors' understanding of eyewitness reliability evidence. Jurimetrics, 46, 177-214.
68. Shafto, P., & Coley, J. D. (2003). Development of categorization and reasoning in the natural world: Novices to experts, naive similarity to ecological knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 641-649. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.29.4.641
69. Shechory, M., Nachson, I., & Glicksohn, J. (2010). Effects of stereotypes and suggestion on memory. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 54, 113-130. doi:10.1177/0306624X08322217
70. Sherman, J. W., Groom, C. J., Ehrenberg, K., & Klauer, K. C. (2003). Bearing false witness under pressure: Implicit and explicit components of stereotype-driven memory distortions. Social Cognition, 21, 213-246. doi:10.1521/soco.21.3.213.25340
71. Sherman, J. W., Macrae, C. N., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2000). Attention and stereotyping: Cognitive constraints on the construction of meaning-ful social impressions. European Review of Social Psychology, 11, 145-175. doi:10.1080/14792772043000022
72. Simons, D. J., & Chabris, C. F. (2011). What people believe about how the memory works: A representative survey of the U.S. population. PloS ONE, 6, e22757. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0022757
73. Smith, V. L., Kassin, S. M., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1989). Eyewitness accuracy and confidence: Withinversus between-subjects correlations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 356-359. doi:10.1037/0021-9010 .74.2.356
74. Snodgrass, J. G., & Corwin, J. (1988). Pragmatics of measuring recognition memory: Applications to dementia and amnesia. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 117, 34-50. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.117.1.34
75. Spiegelhalter, D. J., Best, N. G., Carlin, B. P., & van der Linde, A. (2002). Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B (Statistical Methodology), 64, 583-639. doi:1369-7412/02/64583
76. Sporer, S. L. (2008). Lessons from the origins of eyewitness testimony research in Europe. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 737-757. doi: 10.1002/acp.1479
77. 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, 315-327. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.118.3.315
78. Stalans, L. J. (1993). Citizens' crime stereotypes, biased recall and punishment preferences in abstract cases: The educative role of interpersonal sources. Law and Human Behavior, 17, 451-470. doi:10.1007/ BF01044378
79. Tuckey, M. R., & Brewer, N. (2003). The influence of schemas, stimulus ambiguity, and interview schedule on eyewitness memory over time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 9, 101-118. doi:10.1037/1076-898X.9.2.101
80. Tulving, E., & Thomson, D. M. (1973). Encoding specificity and retrieval processes in episodic memory. Psychological Review, 80, 352-373. doi:10.1037/h0020071
81. Weber, N., & Brewer, N. (2004). Confidence-accuracy calibration in absolute and relative face recognition judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 10, 156-172. doi:10.1037/1076-898X.10.3.156
82. Weller, S. C. (1987). Shared knowledge, intracultural variation, and knowledge aggregation. American Behavioral Scientist, 31, 178-193. doi: 10.1177/000276487031002004
83. Weller, S. C., Romney, A. K., & Orr, D. P. (1987). The myth of a sub-culture of corporal punishment. Human Organization, 46, 39-47.
84. Wells, G. L., Memon, A., & Penrod, S. D. (2006). Eyewitness evidence. Improving its probative value. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7, 45-75. doi:10.1111/j.1529-1006.2006.00027.x
85. Wise, R. A., & Safer, M. A. (2004). What US judges know and believe about eyewitness testimony. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18, 427443. doi:10.1002/acp.993
86. Wright, D. B., Memon, A., Skagerberg, E. M., & Gabbert, F. (2009). When eyewitnesses talk. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 174-178. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01631.x
87. Wright, D. B., & Schwartz, S. L. (2010). Conformity effects in memory for actions. Memory & Cognition, 38, 1077-1086. doi:10.3758/MC.38.8 .1077