Queen Margaret University logo
    • Login
    View Item 
    •   QMU Repositories
    • eTheses
    • PhD
    • School of Arts, Social Sciences and Management
    • Psychology & Sociology
    • View Item
    •   QMU Repositories
    • eTheses
    • PhD
    • School of Arts, Social Sciences and Management
    • Psychology & Sociology
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    I am pretty sure but not 100%: obtaining, interpreting and presenting eyewitness confidence statements

    View/Open
    12683.pdf (2.419Mb)
    Date
    2022
    Author
    Pennekamp, Pia
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    Abstract
    Eyewitness identification confidence is typically studied using scales (generally numeric); in practice, eyewitnesses typically provide confidence in their own words. Verbal and numeric confidence similarly predict accuracy, but verbal confidence is difficult to interpret reliably (Mansour, 2020). To minimize miscommunication, eyewitnesses could provide scale ratings after verbal judgements or vice versa, but we do not know if the order in which such confidence statements are obtained affects the confidence-accuracy relationship. I tested the utility of requesting both verbal and numeric confidence and whether order effects exist. Participants (N = 198) viewed a mock-crime video with two perpetrators. After a delay, they viewed two simultaneous lineups with one perpetrator each and provided confidence for each perpetrator verbally (in their own words) and then numerically (0-100%) or numerically and then verbally. Numeric confidence in identifications was higher when provided first, t(393.82) = 2.40, p = .02, d = 0.24. Confidence-accuracy characteristic (CAC) curve analysis indicates the effect is driven by medium-confidence judgements (numeric range). No order effect was found for verbal confidence (p = .32). However, for low and high numeric confidence, verbal followed by numeric was better calibrated than numeric followed by verbal. When the numeric judgement came first, none of the subsequent verbal judgements could be categorized as high confidence using our coding scheme. These data provide preliminary evidence that eyewitnesses should provide only a single confidence judgement.
    URI
    https://eresearch.qmu.ac.uk/handle/20.500.12289/12683
    Collections
    • Psychology & Sociology

    Queen Margaret University: Research Repositories
    Accessibility Statement | Repository Policies | Contact Us | Send Feedback | HTML Sitemap

     

    Browse

    All QMU RepositoriesCommunities & CollectionsBy YearBy PersonBy TitleBy QMU AuthorBy Research CentreThis CollectionBy YearBy PersonBy TitleBy QMU AuthorBy Research Centre

    My Account

    LoginRegister

    Queen Margaret University: Research Repositories
    Accessibility Statement | Repository Policies | Contact Us | Send Feedback | HTML Sitemap