Are multiple-trial experiments appropriate for eyewitness identification studies? Accuracy, choosing, and confidence across trials
Mansour, Jamal K.
Beaudry, J. L.
Lindsay, R. C. L.
MetadataShow full item record
Mansour, J. K., Beaudry, J. L. & Lindsay, R. C. L. (2017) Are multiple-trial experiments appropriate for eyewitness identification studies? Accuracy, choosing, and confidence across trials. Behavior Research Methods, 49, pp. 2235-2254.
Eyewitness identification experiments typically involve a single trial: a participant views an event and subsequently makes a lineup decision. Compared to this single-trial paradigm, multiple-trial designs are more efficient but significantly reduce ecological validity and may affect the strategies participants use to make lineup decisions. We examined the effects of a number of forensically-relevant variables (i.e., memory strength, type of disguise, degree of disguise, and lineup type) on eyewitness accuracy, choosing, and confidence across 12 target-present and 12 target-absent lineup trials (N = 349; 8,376 lineup decisions). Rates of correct rejections and choosing (across both target-present and -absent lineups) did not vary across the 24 trials as reflected by main effects or interactions with trial number. Trial number had a significant but trivial quadratic effect on correct identifications (OR = 0.99) and interacted significantly, but again trivially, with disguise type (OR = 1.00). Trial number did not significantly influence participants' confidence in correct identifications, confidence in correct rejections, or confidence in target-absent selections. Thus, multiple-trial designs appear to have minimal effects on eyewitness accuracy, choosing, and confidence. Researchers should consider using multiple-trial designs for conducting eyewitness identification experiments.