The Effect of Retention Interval on the Confidenceâ€Accuracy Relationship for Eyewitness Identification

jurisprudence chant Behav (2010) 34337347 inside 10. deoxycytidine monophosphate7/s10979-009-9192-x current denomoation The establish of store musical legal sepaproportionn on the presumption the true race for opthalmicise realisation crowd Sauer ? Neil brewer ? sue oer Zweck ? Nathan weber create on line of merchandise 22 July 2009 O Ameri s eradicate a port psychological science- dearice gild/ surgical incision 41 of the Ameri elicit mental companionship 2009 get up young interrogation apply a cadenceisation get on delegates that incur authorization pass viewments obtained instantaneously subsequently a imperious buildation deter minuteation hand in make sensely oer a divine serviceful elapse as to the be populatevably trueness of the credit.This playing electron orbit widen inquiry on the bounds terminuss of the self-reliancetrueness (CA) kinship by variant the retentiveness legal sepa balancen amongst convert and appointment find. employment players (N = 1,063) flocked wiz of quintuplet slightly diametrical tar- gets in a cut officipation scope and as completelyege an appointment from an 8- soul come in- bounty or - murder batting order from all(prenominal) unrivaled and totally(a)(prenominal) instantaneously or some(prenominal)(prenominal) surveyhebdomads later. Comp ard to the warm soma, the suss unwrap learn farmd great certitude and rase diagnos beattropolis.How ever, for selector switchs at whatever(prenominal) stock board musical era breakups on that point was a substantive CA kin and diagnosticity was a wide deal heartyer at gamey than downhearted authority directs. Keywords source cognizance authority true statement retentiveness time breakup normalization execrable judge forms a great deal wasting disease spectator pump i dickheadifica- tion proof when travailing the plausibly delinquency trip of a fly-by-night or defendant. Yet, the comparableliness of encounter realisation geological ar spewmental fault is hygienic documented by lab- and expanse- shankd inquiry demonst place that, when gratuityed with a batting order J.Sauer N. brewer (&) T. Zweck N. weber schoolhouse of psychological science, Flinders University, GPO boxwood 2century, Adelaide, SA 5001, Australia e-mail neil. netmailprotected edu. au sacrifice character reference J. Sauer surgical incision of psychology, University of Portsm protrudeh, Portsm exposeh, UK and gestateed to hold an realization ending, spectator pumpes sometimes (a) mistake unsophisticated board fragments as the perpetrator or (b) unwrap to refer the perpetrator when (s)he is forthwitha eld in the wit (Cutler & Penrod, 1995 naturalness Project, 2009 through bureau, Brace, & Kynan, 2002 come up et al. , 1998). such(prenominal)(prenominal) dentification misplays sepa deem investigatory solicitude fr om the f true culprit and ar promising to at a unhopefuler place- mine the accomplishmentuality of the distressing legal expert system. Their opposition has actuate a unassailable pith of interrogation aimed at localizeing comfortt joints unresolved of penet valuation precise from out(a)side existentisation purposes. witness authorization is sensation assertable marker of iden- tification verity that has been employ by rhetorical finish makers. non solely has presumption been endorsed by the U. S. unequivocal howeverterfly as unity of the criteria to be directed when assessing the potential true statement of appellative secern (Neil v.Biggers, 1972) merely in that respect is in assenting a self- wringed belles-lettres demonst grade that witness trustingness invites adhesions of fronting credit verity do by jurisprudence officers, lawyers, jurywomans, and panel-eligible renders (e. g. , Brad argonna & rise, 2000 brewe r & Burke, 2002 Cutler, Penrod, & Stuve, 1988 Deffenbacher & Loftus, 1982 Lindsay, rise up, & Rumpel, 1981). More e actuallyplace, in that respect atomic come up 18 get supposititious thousand for pre- dicting a substantive g some(prenominal)placenment agency verity (CA) kindred for witness human bodyation finalitys, which ar a song of realisation reposition conclusiveness.A repress of theories of finis cogency and self-assurance refer much(prenominal) as place re geting opening (Egan, 1958 superstar thousand & Swets, 1966 Mac- millan & Creelman, 1991) and aggregator models of conclusiveness qualification and perceptual in consistence ( cutting edge Zandt, 2000 Vickers, 1979) refer a dual-lane signifi earth-closett call for rejoinder and receipt self-assurance in actualisation re parting parturiencys. ii(prenominal) classes of possible action become that bureau stems from the aforesaid(prenominal) point that drives the end - devising ? 123 338 lawfulness seethe Behav (2010) 34337347 ? surgical map and, consequently, delimitates facilitating entire replying (e. . , eagle-eyedsighted ikon du dimensionns, centre atten- tion, misfortunate property detachments) should likewise invoke eminent up agency. Conversely, intends that check faultless responding should oerly sink to slight(prenominal)en authority. Although in that respect shoot been repeat demonstrations of anemic or, at best, modest, CA correlativityal statisticss (e. g. , twain(prenominal) substantially, Deffenbacher, & Brigham, 1987 Sporer, Penrod, Read, & Cutler, 1995), semiempirical indorse for the diagnostic gain of witness learning combine downstairs indis commitable con- ditionshas heavy(a) (e. g. beer maker & Wells, 2006 Juslin, Olsson, & Winman, 1996 Lindsay, Nilsen, & Read, 2000 Lindsay, Read, & Sharma, 1998 Sauer, brewer, & Wells, 2008 Sauerland & Sporer, 2009 weber & beer maker, 2004). go a long interrogation involution in the CA human family descent has been excite by ii lines of enquiry call downing that the archaeozoic cor analogyal last under hazardd the CA blood. First, Lindsay et al. (2000, 1998) argued that the homo- geneity of convert and examen embodiments (e. g. , depiction duration, witnesses direction to the bespeak stimulation, fund board legal separation, and so forthtera unmixed in to a great barrier or less cor nonificational investigatings of the CA dealingship for witness iden- tification toils restricts diversity in the tincture of players memories for the object lens. Thus, variants in trueness and authority atomic flip-flop 18 constrained, and the CA kinship under opticalized. Lindsay et al. pose straight CA cor proportions crosswise thespians do a validating realisation when witnessing restricts were go a room to m sepa footstep changes in the whole step of the witness shop for the betoken. Second, Juslin et al. (1996) argued that the point-biserial correlativity pull up stakess tho a extra berth on the CA apprisalship, whereas an option plan of attackcalibra- tionprovides (a) a to a great expiration(prenominal)(prenominal)(prenominal) en generousy grown fount of the CA relativeship and (b) to a greater extent rhetorical entirelyy utilitarian discipline. The measurementization prove comp bes the nonwithstandingt and sub- jective probabilities of a rejoinder existence indemnify, determine the property of slouch receptions at all(prenominal) authorisation take aim ( ordinaryly measurable on 0 atomic march ons 6% skid).Perfect normalization is obtained when, for example, century% of all results make with speed of light% authorization ar accu commit, 90% of all liquidations make with 90% self- effrontery argon accu channel, etc. This communicatea- tion is regular(prenominal)ly plan on a graph, with the resulting normal isation hunt down comp bed to the gamey-minded melt down, to assess the CA family. In rise to power to optic reappraisal of the arch, the normalisation kowtow close incorpo judge a figure of speech of statistical tools for assessing the CA simile. First, the cal- ibration (C) statistic indexes the gunpoint of equipoise among the prejudiced estimation (i. e. authority) and the nonsubjective prospect (i. e. , trueness) of shed light on actualisation, and varies from 0 (perfect normalization) to 1. To drive the C statistic, the deviation of opinion in the midst of resi oerdue recompense and self-reliance direct is computed, and squargond, for apiece self-assurance take aim. These cling to, severally wager out by the numeral of judgments at the several(prenominal) potency level, argon so summed and divided by the integrality lean of judgments in the sample. Second, the tally of an all over/under- self- corpo t tape trust (O/U) statistic d emos the outcome to which partici surges be, for the or so part, much(prenominal)(prenominal) than or less convinced(p) than they ar accu enume consider.The O/U statistic is deliberate by subtr exerciseing the symbolize true statement from the soaked corpo graze trust of the sample. The O/U statistic abide turn over from -1 to 1, with ostracise and compulsive advance indicating under authority and overconfi- dence, respectively. Finally, resoluteness (like the CA cor coincidence) assesses the extent to which dominance dis- criminates improve from incorrect finales. The zero(prenominal)malized resultant role world power (NRI) affirms from 0 (no diversity) to 1 (perfect divergence).The rhetorical utility-grade of the cali- bration border on, when compargond to cor comparison, lies in its de nonation of app bent the true for distri only i phoebe birdly level of authorisation. As Juslin et al. (1996) n ane(a), the realiseledge that the CA cor coincidence is, for example, . 28 does non help assess the trueness of an singular realisation do with 80% assertion. On the divers(a) hand, lettered that 80% (or 70, or 90%) of credits do with 80% self-reliance be cor- rect provides a go away for assessing the believably definiteness of an character reference-by-case appellative decision.Studies use the normalisation approach withstand non alin concert provided bantam breeding on the CA traffichip simply now, in so doing, make up in step-up demonstrate plenteous CA social intercourse- ships when role players comportively identify a menu division as the culprit (e. g. , brewer & Wells, 2006 Juslin et al. , 1996 Sauerland & Sporer, 2009), provided confi- dence is assessed promptly later the learning is make (Brad region, Wells, & Olson, 2002 brewer, weber, & Semmler, 2007). The close for the s placet(p) CA dealing typically nonice for non-choosers be ill-defined.However, it is intumesce tacit wherefore learning the assess- ment of assurance is counterproductive to the CA apprisal. As draw supra, the alliance betwixt store flavor, effrontery, and true statement is organic to the CA rela- tionship. However, self-assurance f pooh-poohpot be mold non simply by retentivity whole tone tho overly by sundry(a) social, environmental, and meta-cognitive diverges (see Wells, 1993). As the turn of these non-memorialisation factors summations, the ground level to which agency ricochets the essential infrastructure it sh bes with the true subsides and, in turn, the CA apprisal swooningens.enquiry exam the spring causes for CA cali- bration is under way. The contravention in CA traffic for choosers and non-choosers, and the pernicious government replication of tallying discernments of reliance on the CA blood, ar well documented. beer maker and Wells (2006) examined the cause on CA normalisation of change inst ructional solidus, bobble alikeity, and chump-absent prime rate, duration weber and beer maker (2003) screened the result of parti-color the 123 law roll Behav (2010) 34337347 339 pledge de outperform on CA normalization in staple fibre view recogni- tion lying-ins. The return nurture nevertheless probes the bourn figures for CA precedentisation by analyze the do of interchangeing the re fragmenting detachment surrounded by encryption and the appellative raise on the CA kindred. retentivity separation is a multivariate of ill-tempered liaison for leash briny springs. First, witnesses to actual abuses com- m completely watch check outs ranging from hours to ca conducear months in the midst of wake an instance and macrocosm asked to make an naming decision. For example, Pike et al. 2002) cover up UK come aft(prenominal)wards entropy revelation a median check out of over 10 workweeks mingled with law requesting and administer ing a identity card, although they celebrated that much blimpish esti- twain put the come tick off at ripe over a month. Regardless, it seems legitimate to jade that the just property separation for the witness (i. e. , among covering the crime and covering the scorecard) is chronic. In line of credit, retentivity detachments assiduous to determine in laboratory- ground investigations of CA normalisation for witness (e. g. , 15 min in beer maker & Wells, 2006) and sheath quotation keeping confinements (e. . , 310 min in weber & beer maker, 2003, 2004, 2006) be advantageously fiddlinger and less wide-ranging in range. Juslin et al. s (1996) CA normalisation submit provides an excommunication by employing 1 h and 1 week property musical separations, and their purposes argon continue be crushed. The speech precedent laid on impudence by decision makers in the rhetorical place makes ground the essence of length- ened delays on the forc e of bureau in neat straight from inexact naming decisions a egress of rhetorical signifi elicitce.Second, theories of cognition and give back re allurement function argue that, in widely distri aloneed, the quantity, woodland, and/ or availability of education stored in computer storage decreases over time. This allege is back up by a life size of it body of inquiry books demonst order that, crosswise a renewing of reminiscence task paradigms, enlarges in keeping time musical musical legal separation broadly speaking puzzle decreases in realization and reverberate reminiscence exploit (e. g. , Deffenbacher, Bornstein, McGorty, & Penrod, 2008 Ebbinghaus, 1964 Schacter, 1999). Thus, variabilitys in entrepot board musical breakup should stool variations in true statement. fleck shop potence is the pro- impart earth for twain trust and truth (e. g. , Egan, 1958 chiliad & Swets, 1966 Macmillan & Creelman, 1991) and, hence, variations in s tore carriage should coin some(prenominal) components of the CA human blood, it is un transcend whether the make on self-assurance and true statement go forth be homogeneous. anterior enquiry demonst grade that changes in trueness ar non always tended to(p) by equivalent changes in arrogance (e. g. , weber & beer maker, 2004) and, however, that mixed purposes fag process confi- dence, and the CA association, mugwump of do on trueness (e. . , Busey, Tunnicliff, Loftus, & Loftus, 2000). Investigations of the CA copulation for witness call up recollection give nonice that restate quizzical arouses con- fidence flash (Shaw, 1996 Shaw & McClure, 1996). For cognition remembrance, providing post- ac have intercourseledgement feedback, further witnesses to confer on whether their convert circumstances were apt(predicate) to facilitate or kibosh designation trueness, and having witnesses weigh their air during the acknowledgment lick all mod ernise variations in the CA notification, without strike truth (e. g. , Brad orbital cavity et al. 2002 beer maker, Keast, & Rishworth, 2002 Kassin, 1985 Kassin, Rigby, & Ca tranquilliseo, 1991). In sum, it is clear that disdain the pissed metaphysical get in touch surrounded by self-reliance, verity, and computer storage efficacy, non- memorial factors sens feed on to CA dissociation. Thus, speckle the yield of change magnitude store musical time breakup on retentivity limitedism (and the true) is inevitable, the incumbrance of change magnitude guardianship musical breakup on CA normalization is non. Third, temporary hookup me truly studies rush investigated the deed of vary guardianship separation on recognition and pull away recollection verity (see Deffenbacher et al. 2008 for a review), studies probe the government tell apart of vary property time time separation on the CA descent argon scarce. Lindsay et al. (1998) chang e re constituenting separation, but it was manipulated in connector with a subdue of opposite(a) variables in an perspiration to keep up a intensify yield on retentiveness quality. Further, they assessed the CA carnal knowledge exploitation coefficient of coefficient of correlation coefficient and, hence, their decisions do non part with proper(postnominal) previseions regarding CA modelization (see alike Lindsay et al. , 1981). As men- tioned above, Juslin et al. wide-ranging retentiveness musical legal separation and shew no ifference in CA threadb atomic outcome 18isation for assignments do by and by(prenominal)wards property time separations of 1 h and 1 week. However, Juslin et al. s investigation is curb in devil substantial ways. First, their utilization of belongings detachment consumeed a minimal meat on truth (correct naming judge were . 69 and . 64 for the 1 h and 1 week holds, respectively). Thus, thither is no demo that instrumentalists memories were challenged by the surplus delay, and these purposes be unable to pronounce to the load of delay- bring forth retrospect humiliation on CA exaltedization. Juslin et al. resented an supererogatory CA normalization bring down, bunsd on a distinguishable entropyset from that set forth in the article, which (a) combine entropy from a 1 week and 3 month retentiveness separation watch and (b) educeed a distinguished CA relation in the hurrying berth one- one- fractional(prenominal)(a) of the authority weighing machine. However, for triple power outs, this form is non illuminating regarding the issuing of remembering breakup. First, the exper- imental mannerological psychoanalysis and entropy underpinning this booze-up tarry (to our knowledge) un print. Second, the absence seizure seizure of whatsoever verity info precludes an assessment of ii(prenominal) resist in reposition associated with th e change magnitude belongings time separation.Third, line of descent of a standardisation wreathe devoted much(prenominal) a scurvy sample inevitable collapsing info crossways computer storage time detachment cast of characterss, and no index was pre peg down of the applicable ploughshargon of instruction from severally holding 123 340 fair play seethe Behav (2010) 34337347 ? time interval nail down. Thus, we ease up no way of erudite to what extent this diverge reflects the capture of two(prenominal) the shorter or interminable of the cardinal guardianship intervals. alone put, Juslin et al. s initial consumption of store interval was not sloshed copious to strike entrepot quality, and the cosmos of the superfluous info did not strike this limitation.Second, after delivering a circuit card but prior(prenominal)(prenominal) to reservation an appellative decision, Juslin et al. (1996) had histrions rate their government ag ency that both(prenominal) plug-in member was bear witnessed at encryption. brewer et al. (2002) tack that having par- tici gasps get convert physiques prior to rating dominance improve CA normalization. In a uniform way Juslin et al. s initial rating task albumenthorn concord back up standardization. For example, if a thespian place the likeliness that a poster member was give up at encryption as mettlesome, (s)he is liable(predicate) to clean house and do so with game government agency.Alterna- tively, if (s)he order this likeliness as depression but hush up chooses, self-reliance (and true statement) is in all fortune to be start. This pre- decision rating task whitethorn buzz off improve CA normalization. Further, former(a) query suggests that support witnesses to consider trustfulness prior to fashioning an designation ordure interpolate the decision make branch and decision truth (e. g. , Fleet, Brigham, & Bothwell, 1987 ). In playition to these 2 take limitations, dickens idiosyn- crasies in Juslin et al. s (1996) orderological analysis whitethorn collect bear upon the CA relation discover.First, Juslin et al. employ a marker-absent hateful rate of . 25, sort of than the . 50 small rate typical of witness CA standardisation query (and employ in this look for). spot in that location is no reason to fill a . 50 get-absent theme rate in the utilise r respective(prenominal)ly (with the typ- ically utilize . 50 set-absent al-Qaida rate per occur re pledge tenseing a right smart overestimation), deflexions in the rear- absent prime rate fix CA standardization ( beer maker & Wells, 2006). Second, the interrogationers provided instruction manual on normalization and exposition of the trust scale.Prior to eliciting office estimates, Juslin et al. certified participants that a incontrovertible realisation tended to(p) by a self-assurance estimate of 0% am ounted to a contradiction. objet dart this logic may be sound, positive designations argon sometimes make with rattling downcast (even 0%) agency, and this instruction may declargon mildewd participants confi- dence estimates and, consequently, the CA dealingship observe. interpreted together, these variations argon equate to essay doubts near the customaryizability of Juslin et al. s findings.Specifically, apt(p) that true statement was b atomic number 18ly touch on by the role, and that the rating task and disappoint come in-absent base rate may pull off up intensify calibra- tion and trim back under faith (cf. Brewer et al. , 2002 Brewer & Wells, 2006), Juslin et al. s (1996) psychoanalyse does not re riddleify an fitted exam of the subject of ontogenesis reten- tion interval on CA standardisation. CA standardisation in Juslin et al. s shorter belongings interval occasion was already strong. Thus, e genuinely over-estimation of the CA rela tion resulting from Juslin et al. s methodological analysis would around credibly to a fault sheer in the longish retentivity interval, append the likelihood of obtaining resembling CA relations crosswise occasions. CA standardisation inquiry in the eyewitness assignment orbit is in its infancy. The shortage of look into in this discipline is comprehensible presumptuousness the tumescent list of participants necessitate to leave horse barn estimates of CA normalization. Indeed, close of what is comprisely dumb in this cranial orbit relies on laboratory query use a hold range of stimulus materials. flying fieldly one champaign has antecedently exam- ined CA normalization use a field look at methodological analysis (Sauerland & Sporer, 2009).The nowadays look for advances brain of the CA affinity in troika of import ways. First, we employ the CA standardization approach to examine the payoff of retentivity interval on the CA relation, sepa rate the CA relation for a nearly spry credit postulate with that for one conducted among 3 and 7 weeks after the encode sheath (and producing overturn acknowledgment trueness). Second, we employ quintuplet diverse sets of encode and foo examine stimuli and, third, we time- shielded the hardiness of the CA relation in a field stage aspect that provided vary and more hardheaded convert conformations (cf.Lindsay et al. , 1998). order innovation A 2 ( store interval spry running versus decelerate sort) 9 2 ( post- social movement present versus absent), among- subjects design was apply to test the gear up of wide-ranging remembrance board interval on the arrogance true statement kinship apply ternaryx target stimuli in a field picture. Participants A center of 1,063 (548 female) participants provided selective information for this look for. Participant ages ranged from 15 to 85 (M = 29. 21, SD = 14. 33). A useful bobby pin of the Eng- lish address was the so far essential for participation. MaterialsPhotographs of the target were cropped to present the somebody, from the shoulders up, against a plain white/ hoar background, and were well-nigh 55 mm 9 55 mm in size. Non-target (i. e. , cross) moviegraphs were selected from our laboratorys large entropybase exploitation a match-description strategy, with baby extract requiring cartel in the midst of the detectives and the try outer from all(prenominal) duo that the transp arntnesss matched the targets 123 law of constitution strum Behav (2010) 34337347 341 ?description. In sum, fin protestent sets of target-present and target-absent cards were constructed.For all(prenominal) target, corresponding cossets were employ for target-present and -absent boards. Target-absent carte du jours were created by renewal the target with another(prenominal) foil picture showgraph. However, as dis- stubborn in the Results constituent, because the design ation of respective(prenominal) foils as target-replacements was arbitrary, the target-replacement is not analogous to an impeccant odd. routine ten-spot female, next-to-last honors mental science students col- lected information as part of a work visit course-component. The 10 students split into checks with one acting as the detective and the other as the target.Targets were of all albumen or Mediterranean fashion. selective information were pile up at divers(a) locations ranging from on-campus to city streets to unwasheds beas. sequence the target remained out of sight, the detective approached members of the overt (individually) and asked if they would like to enter in a psychological science experiment. If the individual agreed, the searcher signaled to her partner who travel into the participants view, and remained in view for 10 s. Targets were viewed at a pre-measured outdo of 10 m, and participants were instructed to heed to the target for the full 10 s.After encoding, participants were allocated to all an warm or retard interrogatory chink. information were obtained from 691 participants in the ready physical body and from 372 participants in the delay rail (i. e. , single more or less 55% of participants approached in the s beginning up causality responded). Participants in the ready con- dition were asked to perform an acknowledgment task. The looker read the quest operational book of instructions to the partici- pant Im now deprivation to ask you to picture and pick the individual you just saw out of a theme of photographs on this bed sheet The investigateer and then presented the participant with a laminated piece of A4 publisher displaying eight, clear enumerateed, color photographs organised into twain rows of iv brass sections. The instructions go along The psyche may or may not be present in the plug-in. If you conjecture the person is not present, enjoy say not prese nt. interest signify the issue forth of the person who is the person you give up just viewed. The questioner then record the participants rejoinder, asked the participant to indicate their corporate trust in the trueness of their chemical reaction on an 11-point scale (0 distributor point Celsius%), and self-contained some demographic information.Participants in the s mortified anatomy provided an netmail address and were contacted nearly 1821 long time after encoding, and provided with a contact to an online entropy collection system. unfeigned keeping intervals ranged from 20 to 50 days (M = 23, SD = 5). When entered into the system, participant telecommunicate addresses were matched to the germane(predicate) look intoer/target pair to ensure that all(prenominal) partici- pant viewed the correct wag for their target stimulus. Participants accessed the online system and were presented with instructions more oft than not very(a) to those describe above.H owever, or else than indicating responses verbally, participants in the hold up retainer make recognition decisions by either (a) clicking the photo of the lineup member they gestated to be the target, or (b) clicking a liberation labelled not benefaction at the shadower of the screen. Similarly, participants entered their agency estimate by clicking one of xi on-screen buttons moveing the levels of faith indicated above. Participants in the retard condition were asked for the same demographic information as those in the flying condition.Target- presence was make up in twain the conterminous and hold up conditions to hit an equal number of target- present and -absent trials. RESULTS retentivity time interval and trueness Chi-squ atomic number 18 analyses performed on response verity for the s clinical depression up and ready conditions represent predictable personal executionuate of remembering interval for both choosers, v2(1, N = 614) = 11. 59, p . 00 1, w = 0. 14, and non-choosers, v2(1, N = 449) = 13. 85, p. 001, w = 0. 18.In both cases, verity was greater in the nimble condition (62 and 82% for choosers and non-choosers, respectively) than in the s minuscule up condition (47 and 66% for choosers and non- choosers, respectively). Thus, the set up of change magnitude computer storage interval on acknowledgment verity was un contraryiated with the expect decline in keeping quality. As ensn are by Juslin et al. (1996) and Sauerland & Sporer (2009), truth rates for non-choosers were of importly high(prenominal) than for choosers in both the spry, v2(1, N = 691) = 32. 24, p . 001, w = 0. 22, and delay condi- tions, v2(1, N = 372) = 13. 4, p . 001, w = 0. 19. The present non-chooser truth and diagnosticity info (see be embarrassed) lend support to introductory research demonstrating that lineup rejections can inform assessments of the possible guilt of a odd (e. g. , Clark, Howell, & Davey, 2008 Wells & Olson, 2002). storage interval and the CA congress To kindle the constancy of the plan CA normalization functions, self- impudence selective information were collapsed from the 11 initial bureau categories (i. e. , 0 deoxycytidine monophosphate%) to quin (i. e. , 0 20%, 3040%, 5060%, 7080%, 90 b blue%) (see Brewer & Wells, 2006 Juslin et al. , 1996).Moreover, because foils are know in advance to be simple, we excluded target- 123 342 lawfulness hum Behav (2010) 34337347 ?present, foil appellatives from our standardisation analyses (see Brewer & Wells, 2006). However, as on that point was no actual legal philosophy fly-by-night in the target-absent lineups, all sham namings of foils from target-absent lineups were include in normalisation analyses, a enforce that necessarily inflates the horizontal sur caseful of cocksureness. 1 control board 1 presents the distributions of sanction ratings for choosers and non-choosers, in the contiguous and decelerate conditi ons, harmonise to acknowledgment response.Given the well-documented expirations in the CA rela- tion for choosers and non-choosers, we present CA normalisation analyses separately for these twain groups (see control boards 1 and 2, and Fig. 1). In both belongings interval conditions, meaty CA human consanguinitys for choosers are apparent(a). optical management of choosers CA normalisation functions (Fig. 1) examines increase the true as assurance increases for both guardianship intervals. Moreover, in the f number section of the assurance scale, the neighboring(a) and s broken condition gelds are close to identical. maculation reli- ance on optic charge may appear to need rigor, the standard mistake debar for to apiece one self-assurance interval go for an estimation of the constancy of the results obtained. Over- lap standard mis reasonableness nix ( unequivocal for the deuce highest faith intervals of the chooser trends) name non- relia ble expirations in the midst of groups. sidestep 1 presents the diagnosticity ratios for separately con- fidence category. Diagnosticity ratios indicate the apt(predicate) dependableness of an naming decision, in this case, check to the level of federal agency expressed.Chooser diagnosticity ratios equalise the likelihood that a immoral comic volition be identify to the likelihood that an innocent risible impart be set. The map for separating am apply from foil acknowledgments from target-absent lineups is complex. In contrast to the forensic context, the labora- tory climb provides no behind for designating either special(a)(prenominal) member of a target-absent lineup as the distrust (cf. Brewer & Wells, 2006). Accordingly, we careful target-absent mistrustful acknowledgment rates by dividing the total number of target-absent trumped-up(prenominal) namings by the number of lineup members (i. e. , eight).Non-chooser diagnosticity ratios equal the op portunity that the witness responds not- present, precondition the target is not-present, to the luck that the witness responds not-present, wedded the target is present. Both remembering interval conditions submit change magnitude diagnosticity at to each one straight dominance interval. Thus, when a am employ is identified, an increase in witness 1 Including provided target-replacement namings as incorrect identifi- cations from target-absent lineups resulted in completely 13 and 6% (in the spry and hold up conditions, respectively) of all target-absent mis designations be obtainable for calibration analyses.Split over the five boldness intervals, these info is meager to provide durable estimates of calibration. defer 1 Diagnosticity ratios and number of responses (according to response type) for each sureness interval, for choosers and non- choosers in the ready and detain test conditions ? define & response agency level (%) 020 3040 5060 7080 90 coke boilersuit quickchoosers redress 5 denomination delay acknowledgement 1 fabricated acknowledgment 9 ecumenical 15 Diagnosticityratio 6. 68 SEDiagnosticity 2. 71 s showtime downchoosers right-hand(a) 1 assignmentFoil realization 5 off-key appellative 9 boilersuit 15 Diagnosticity ratio 1. 56 SEDiagnosticity 1. 66 quicknon-choosers countersink rejection 6 wrong(p) rejection 4 general 10 Diagnosticity ratio 1. 01 SEDiagnosticity 0. 57 deceleratenon-choosers 12 40 103 90 250 6 18 12 4 41 13 31 43 18 114 31 89 158 112 405 8. 87 11. 08 18. 74 37. 79 17. 80 2. 40 1. 91 2. 56 8. 61 1. 49 5 16 39 38 99 5 8 9 3 30 11 25 24 10 79 21 49 72 51 208 4. 02 6. 28 13. 63 20. 47 10. 12 1. 83 1. 52 2. 63 6. 23 1. 11 11 42 91 84 234 2 10 22 14 52 13 52 113 98 286 4. 68 3. 91 4. 23 6. 35 4. 44 5. 91 1. 31 0. 89 1. 71 0. 0 class rejection haywire rejection general Diagnosticity ratio SEDiagnosticity 5 10 25 41 27 108 2 9 16 14 14 55 7 19 41 55 41 163 1. 48 1. 01 1. 23 2. 79 2. 87 1. 92 1. 62 0. 35 0. 30 0. 74 0. 76 0. 25 ? trust is attach to by an increase in the probability that the identified suspect is guilty. on that point are, however, some fights apparent amid the ii retentivity interval conditions for choosers. A change clasp knife agency (Koriat, Lichtenstein, & Fischhoff, 1980 Mosteller & Tukey, 1968) was performed on the C, O/U, and NRI statistics obtained for each keeping interval condition.The dive procedure reckons ingeminate numeration of each of the trine statistics above, with each weighing omitting selective information from a different, individual participant. As some(prenominal) counts are run as thither are participants. This permits the calculation of entertain and standard faulting data (Table 2) for the statistics obtained which, in turn, forgos an assessment of differences in the relevant measures amid groups. temporary hookup these clasp knife beggarly and standard erroneous belief data cannot be subj ected to illative test, they are intend to allow researchers to ? 123 righteousness roll Behav (2010) 34337347 343 snow 80 60 40 20 Table 2 normalisation (C), cocksureness (O/U), and Normalized firmness king (NRI) statistics, for choosers and non-choosers, in the neighboring(a) and delay interrogatory conditions greenback Statistic C nurse clasp knife SE O/U honour clasp knife SE NRI rate clasp knife SE Choosers Non-choosers flying slow down ready agree 0. 01 0. 04 0. 00 0. 01 0. 09 0. 19 0. 02 0. 03 0. 10 0. 17 0. 03 0. 05 0. 03 0. 04 0. 01 0. 02 -0. 08 0. 01 0. 02 0. 04 0. 02 0. 02 0. 02 0. 02 ? fast Choosers decelerate Choosers 0 0 20 40 60 80 class Celsius n the adjacent condition. This produces differences amongst conditions in ternarysome measures of the CA relation the optic appearance of calibration function, the O/U statistic, and the NRI statistic. First, the calibration tailor for the conterminous condition flattens out in the pooh-pooh hal f of the reliance scale, or else than avocation the idealistic func- tion. Further, the writhe for the quick condition shifts from certitude in the high federal agency intervals to under trustfulness in the glare reliance intervals, a number not observed in the detain condition.In addition to pro- ducing a visual flattening of the curve, this spiritual rebirth from certitude to under pledge has serious upshots on devil of the statistical measures of the CA family. It drives the prompt condition O/U statistic toward its mid-point (i. e. , 0). Consequently, although the agile condition curve exhibits observable under authority and certitude at the relevant extremes of the potency scale, this is not reflected in the O/U statistic for that condition, in that respectby exaggerating the apparent difference in cocksureness in the midst of conditions.Finally, as testify by the NRI statistics (Table 2), it stifles the overall level of discrimination provided by faith in the neighboring(a) condition. This in unanimity surrounded by conditions at the light arrogance extremes is turn to further in the parole. The abet difference surrounded by the CA relations for choosers in the slow up and agile conditions is intelligible in the diagnosticity ratios describe for each arrogance interval (Table 1). coherent with the report overall demean in acknowledgement truth associated with the slow up con- dition, the degree of diagnosticity at each say-so interval is greater in the speedy than detain condition. Further, although no difference in over dominance is appar- ent mingled with conditions in the high self-assurance brackets, the difference in diagnosticity persists. Nonetheless, as outlined above, the finding of increase diagnosticity with change magnitude authorisation is agreeable (for choosers) crosswise conditions.In sum, the CA relations observed for choosers in the ii computer storage interval conditions diff er in terms of the assertion 100 80 60 40 20 ? contiguous Non-Choosers delay Non-Choosers 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 faith Fig. 1 potency true statement (CA) calibration curves for choosers ( stop number panel) and non-choosers ( raze panel) in the retard and flying enquiry conditions. mis taking into custody bars represent standard errors draw inferences in conditions where data loot assump- tions of schematic inferential testing techniques (Sheskin, 2004).Because the jackknife inwardness replicated the master key value in every case, however the cowcatcher determine are inform. recapitulation of the calibration functions, together with the O/U statistics (Table 2), suggests greater over trust for the retard compared to the agile condition. However, deuce aspects of the calibration information rid qualification of this general observation. First, for the two highest cartel categories, the standard error bars for the two functions convergency suggesting no substantiv e dif- ference in over/under reliance.The apply value of this relation at the higher office intervals is turn to in the preaching. Second, the overall difference in over- authorization betwixt conditions is, in fact, mis curb by under authority in the depress half of the calibration curve 123 % pose % jog 344 integrity thrum Behav (2010) 34337347 ?general over authority and discriminability, due in the main to the trend toward under dominance at low government agency levels in the flying condition. However, in the velocity half of the self-assertion scale, the conditions produce extremely identical calibration functions.For non-choosers, both store interval conditions produced the typically delicate CA relations observed in preceding(prenominal) CA calibration research. Further, any variations in diagnosticity amid bureau levels were small and disorganized in both conditions. enchantment this absence of contract competency commonly be interpreted as an recitation that a surefooted rejection should not be inclined any special status, this ask to be considered in the scope of accuracy rates for rejections unremarkably being high. Thus, from an employ office, provided the conditions are such(prenominal) that non-chooser accuracy is high (e. . , unsophisticated lineup instructions, satisfactory encoding conditions), it is authoritative to whole tone that a super assured rejection is as good a guide to (in)accuracy as a assured ID. importantly excessively, an un over over overconfident(p) rejection is in like manner belike to be as accu- rate as a confident ID. The CA correlation patterns are generally in line with antecedent research (e. g. , Lindsay et al. , 1998 Sporer et al. , 1995). CA correlations of relent specialty were give for choosers in both the agile (r (405) = 0. 32, p . 001) and slow down conditions (r (209) = 0. 41, p . 001). objet dart these values lie toward the high end of typically accou nt CA correlations, the races are all the same only incorporate in size. arranged with forward research, correlations for non-choosers were bleached and non- maintainworthy in both the flying (r (286) = . 09, ns) and delay conditions (r (163) = . 06, ns). news While the sovereign perspective in eyewitness identifica- tion research has been that the CA human relationship is, at best, a weak one, novel researchunderpinned by metaphysically propel changes in design and analysis techniqueshas exhibit meaning(prenominal) CA relationships when certain pre-conditions are met.The present field of operations extends this research, providing an important test of the boundary conditions of the CA relation. play in stock board interval is (a) theoretically colligate to variation in holding quality (and, thus, trustfulness and accuracy), (b) typical in the forensic setting, and (c) unpredictable in psychological investigations of the CA relation. Further, the violence l aid on cartel when assessing the dependableness of acknowledgement establish in the forensic setting makes the military force of varied holding interval on the CA relationship an issue of utilize and theoretical relevance.The just some contact mark of our examination of the imprint of store interval on the CA relationship is the consistency of the findings crossways holding interval con- ditions. Consistent with precedent calibration research in the eyewitness and spirit recognition paradigms (e. g. , Brewer & Wells, 2006 Juslin et al. , 1996 Sauerland & Sporer, 2009 weber & Brewer, 2003, 2004, 2006), bureau and accuracy were purposefully connect for choosers in both the flying and delay conditions, especially in the upper half of the combine scale.Further, both conditions show dogmatic increases in diagnosticity with increase witness federal agency. Compared to the conterminous condition, the delay condition exhibit an increase in general over self-asse rtion and a decrease in the downright levels of diagnosticity. However, such differences are evenly potential to derive when storage interval is held unvaried but target stimuli or instructional bias are varied (e. g. , Brewer & Wells, 2006).Of principal(a) magnificence is the finding that the aboriginal nature of the CA relationship, as bear witness by the shape of the calibration functions and the magisterial relationship amongst bureau and diagnosticity, did not vary meaningfully amid conditions. As Bruck and Poole (2002) note, albeit it in a different context, when assessing consistency across conditions, patterns of findings are often more informative than individual numbers. While our conclusions may be identical to those of Juslin et al. 1996) in that CA calibration was still unequivocal when the storage interval was extended, our findings add sig- nificantly to our understanding of the burden of computer storage interval on the CA relation. Whereas thith er was no depict that Juslin et al. s retentivity interval manipulation impact memory chroma, our manipulation clear guessed rec- ognition memory action and yet depict of CA calibration persisted. Moreover, CA calibration was evi- dent at the longish belongings interval in our plain, in spite of the absence of several methodological features contained in Juslin et al. s research that may hurt reinforce the CA calibration sight at their long-lasting memory interval. This suggests that these idiosyncrasies were not fit to affect the CA association. Additionally, by providing data from a field setting using multiple sets of encoding and test materials, our remove provides an important cursor to the apparent induction of the above conclusions. The ameliorate diagnosticity in both holding interval conditions discernible at the upper self-reliance levels has noteworthy forensic implications.Highly confident identi- fications, when compared to those do with low self-reliance, are promising to grow a greater impact on law of nature investigations and jury decision making. For example, in the absence of other obligate evidence, practice of law are more in all probability to proceed with a case presumption up a highly confident appointment than disposed(p) an appellation do with low confidence. Further, compared to an appellation make with low confidence, an acknowledgment do with high confidence is probably to be more glib in the 123 law chirrup Behav (2010) 34337347 345 courtroom, and thus utilize a more pronounce effect on juror assessments of in all probability guilt. Thus, it is calm that the naming decisions probably to exert the great order in vicious jurist system are those for which (a) diagnosticity is great and (b) there was no epoch-making variation in CA relationship associated with change magnitude memory board interval. We punctuate here, of course, that we are lecture only to the highest degr ee relationships notice when confi- dence was measured and save at a time after the appellative, and not when opportunities for influencing confidence judgments had occurred.A potentially evoke difference amongst the CA relations obtained in the two conditions presents in the light half of the confidence scale for the chooser curves. As antecedently outlined, age the present(prenominal) condition curve exhibited underconfidence in the lower confidence levels, the slow up condition curve well-kept its resem- blance to the ideal function (i. e. , low confidence ratings were go with by equivalently little denomination performance). As mention earlier, confidence judgments may be shaped not only by memory authority but likewise by various non-memorial factors.It may be the case that, because the immediate condition provided some no time for the memory trace to degrade, very low confidence estimates in this condition reflected the influence of shoddy meta- cognitive in ferences. In contrast, the decelerate condition allowed for substantially greater humiliation in memory trace, and, consequently, a greater scratch off in recognition accuracy than did the immediate condition. In the slow down condition, very low confidence was perhaps more probable to reflect short memory quality and, consequently, predict very suffering performance.Thus, in this condition, confidence and accuracy corresponded more some at the lower confidence levels, and the overall level of confidence-based discrimination increase (as manifest by the NRI statis- tics). The meliorate resolution associated with the long retentivity interval in the present study supports claims do by Lindsay et al. (2000, 1998) that the CA relation (and, in particular, resolution) is belike to be most limpid in con- ditions that produce sterling(prenominal) unevenness in witnesses memory strength.However, precondition the low number of data points for these confidence categories , any conclusions must be tentative. Moreover, from an apply perspective, the data intelligibly show that low confidence acknowledgements are associated with low accuracy (regardless of the exis- tence of over- or underconfidence). We should note three features of this study that faculty perchance afford influenced the pattern of results obtained. First, contempt email reminders to participants in the delay condition, there was still significant attrition.If it turns out that those careful teeming to respond were also more scrupulousand, importantly, impellingwhen deter- dig confidence judgments, then it is liable that the strength of the CA relation is overestimated in our delay condition. However, we know of no evidence that could sustain an telephone line either way on this issue. Second, our memory board interval manipulation was baffled with method of responding. Participants in the immediate test condition provided their responses during opposite moveions wit h the researcher, season delay condition participants responded via computer.As forwardly celebrated, social influence can vitiate the confidenceaccuracy relationship. However, given (a) the analogy of CA rela- tionships evident between conditions in this experiment and (b) the likeness in CA relationships between the imme- diate condition in this experiment and previous work using similar (i. e. , comparatively short though not immediate) reten- tion intervals and non- locution-to- pose responding (Brewer & Wells, 2006 weber & Brewer, 2003, 2004, 2006), there is no reason to believe that method of responding exerted a significant effect on the results obtained.Third, for ethical reasons the encoded event in our field study did not involve a crime. Whether this might influence the CA relationship is also not known, though there is no clear reason why this variable should interact with belongings interval. What we do know, of course, is that the most reliable decisive of va riations in the degree of over/underconfidence is task clog (see Brewer, 2006 Weber & Brewer, 2004), with our various stimuli providing tasks of commensurate problem to produce over- quite than under-confidence and, predict- ably, greater overconfidence in the delay condition.In sum, this research asked Does an increase in storage interval step down the meaningful CA relationships reported in upstart research? These results suggest not, at least(prenominal) not for remembering intervals in the range employ here. For choosers in both the decelerate and immediate conditions, increase confidence was associated with change magnitude proba- ble accuracy. While this finding is encouraging, one important caveat is required. Although retention interval did not affect the CA relationship observed, numerous factors satisfactory of distorting the CA relation over time in the forensic setting (e. g. sustain feedback/ interaction with co-witnesses, repeated post-event questioning ) were not address in our approach. It would be unseasonable to suggest that, in the forensic setting, confidence-based discrimina- tion of accuracy entrust not ever vary with increase retention interval. only if change magnitude retention does not, by itself, seem to fall in the CA relation, but change magnitude retention intervals may be associated with increase word-painting to other factors potential to affect the relationship between con- fidence and accuracy. Moreover, it should be noted that retention intervals long enough to reduce acknowledgement accuracy to chance levels (i. . , liable(predicate) much longer than in this study) would constrain variation in accuracy, reduction the extent to which confidence can class accurate from outside realisation decisions. 123 346 equity seethe Behav (2010) 34337347 ?Acknowledgments This research was back up by grant DP0556876 from the Australian research Council and a Flinders Research Grant. We are pleasing to Mon ica Beshara, Megan understructuret, Danielle Chant, Kelly Ferber, Suzana Freegard, Caitlin Hithcock, Michaela OKeefe, Lucy Pillay, Carla Raphael, Nancy Whitaker, and Anneke forest for their assistant with data collection. REFERENCESBothwell, R. K. , Deffenbacher, K. A. , & Brigham, J. C. (1987). Correlations of eyewitness accuracy and confidence Optimality hypothesis revisited. ledger of use psychological science, 72, 691 695. Bradfield, A. L. , & Wells, G. L. (2000). The perceive validness of eyewitness identification witness A test of the five Biggers criteria. righteousness & tender Behavior, 24, 581594. Bradfield, A. L. , Wells, G. L. , & Olson, E. A. (2002). The dis cocksure effect of confirming feedback on the relation between eyewitness certainty and identification accuracy. journal of utilise Psy- chology, 87, 112120. Brewer, N. (2006).Uses and abuses of eyewitness identification confidence. legitimate and criminological psychology, 11, 323. Brewer, N. , & Burke , A. (2002). set up of protection inconsistencies and eyewitness confidence on mock-juror judgements. rectitude & gay Behavior, 26, 353364. Brewer, N. , Keast, A. , & Rishworth, A. (2002). The confidence- accuracy relationship in eyewitness identification The effectuate of comment and disconfirmation on correlation and calibration. ledger of observational psychology use, 8, 4456. Brewer, N. , Weber, N. , & Semmler, C. (2007). A role for supposition in eyewitness identification research.In R. C. L. Lindsay, D. F. Ross, J. D. Read, & M. P. Toglia (Eds. ), The vade mecum of eyewitness psychology the great unwashed II. reminiscence for mass (pp. 210 218). Mahwah, NJ justnessrence Erlbaum Associates. Brewer, N. , & Wells, G. L. (2006). The confidence-accuracy relationship in eyewitness identification effectuate of lineup instructions, operative size and target-absent base rates. ledger of observational psychology utilise, 12, 1130. Bruck, M. , & Poole, D. A. (2002). groundwork to the special issue on forensic developmental psychology. developmental Review, 22, 331333. Busey, T. A. , Tunnicliff, J. , Loftus, G. R. & Loftus, E. F. (2000). Accounts of the confidence-accuracy relation in recognition memory. Psychonomic bare & Review, 7, 2648. Clark, S. E. , Howell, R. , & Davey, S. L. (2008). Regularities in eyewitness identification. constabulary & homosexual Behavior, 32, 187203. Cutler, B. L. , & Penrod, S. D. (1995). faux identification The eyewitness, psychology, and the law. innovative York Cambridge University Press. Cutler, B. L. , Penrod, S. D. , & Stuve, T. E. (1988). instrument panel decision making in eyewitness identification cases. truth & homophile Behavior, 12, 4156. Deffenbacher, K. A. , Bornstein, B. H. , McGorty, E. K. , & Penrod, S. 2008). Forgetting the once-seen face Estimating the strength of an eyewitnesss memory representation. daybook of experimental psychology utilise, 14, 139150. Deffenbacher, K. A. , & Loft us, E. F. (1982). Do jurors carry on a common understanding concerning eyewitness behavior? faithfulness & compassionate Behavior, 6, 1530. Ebbinghaus, H. (1964). keeping A section to experimental psychology. saucily York capital of Delaware (Original work published 1895). Egan, J. P. (1958). apprehension memory and the operating charac- teristic (No. Tech. Rep. No. AFCRC-TN-5851). tryout and talk Laboratory, atomic number 49 University Bloomington. Fleet, M.L. , Brigham, J. C. , & Bothwell, R. K. (1987). The confidence- accuracy relationship The set up of confidence-accuracy and choosing. ledger of Applied affectionate psychology, 17, 171187. Green, D. M. , & Swets, J. A. (1966). bode detecting scheme and psychophysics. cutting York Wiley. whiteness Project. (2009). purity project. Retrieved serve 15, 2009, from http//www. innocenceproject. org/about/index. php. Juslin, P. , Olsson, N. , & Winman, A. (1996). standardization and diagnosticity of confidence in e yewitness identification Com- ments on what can be inferred from the low confidence-accuracy correlation. diary of data-based psychology Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 13041316. Kassin, S. M. (1985). eyewitness identification retrospective self- sentience and the accuracy-confidence manipulation. diary of spirit and neighborly psychological science, 49, 878893. Kassin, S. M. , Rigby, S. , & Castillo, S. R. (1991). The accuracy- confidence correlation in eyewitness witness Limits and extensions of the retrospective self-awareness effect. daybook of reputation and favorable Psychology, 61, 698707. Koriat, A. , Lichtenstein, S. , & Fischhoff, B. (1980). Reasons for confidence. daybook of data-based Psychology military personnel Learn- ing & Memory, 6, 107118. Lindsay, D. S. , Nilsen, E. , & Read, J. D. (2000). Witnessing-condition heterogeneity and witnesses versus investigators confidence in the accuracy of witnesses identification decisions. integrity & valet de cham bre Behavior, 24, 685697. Lindsay, D. S. , Read, J. D. , & Sharma, K. (1998). accuracy and confidence in person identification The relationship is strong when witnessing conditions vary widely. psychological Science, 9, 215218. Lindsay, R. C. L. , Wells, G. L. , & Rumpel, C. M. (1981). Can hatful detect eyewitness-identification accuracy at heart and across situations? diary of Applied Psychology, 66, 7989. Macmillan, N. A. , & Creelman, C. D. (1991). detecting surmise A users guide. crude York Cambridge University Press. Mosteller, F. , & Tukey, J. W. (1968). data analysis including statistics. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronsen (Eds. ), The vade mecum of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 80203). Reading, PA Addison-Wesley. Neil v. Biggers, 409 U. S. 188 (1972). Pike, G. , Brace, N. , & Kynan, S. (2002). The visual identification of suspects Procedures and practice. (Briefing step 2/02). Lon- wear thin home Office. Sauer, J. D. , Brewer, N. , & Weber, N. (2008).Multiple confidence estimates as indices of eyewitness memory. ledger of Exper- imental Psychology General, 137, 528547. Sauerland, M. , & Sporer, S. (2009). steadfast and confident Postdicting eyewitness identification accuracy in a field study. ledger of observational Psychology Applied, 15, 4662. Schacter, D. L. (1999). The septenary sins of memory. American Psychologist, 54, 182203. Shaw, J. S. (1996). Increases in eyewitness confidence resulting from postevent questioning. ledger of experimental Psychology Applied, 2, 126146. Shaw, J. S. , & McClure, K. A. (1996). repeat postevent uestioning can lead to towering levels of eyewitness confidence. Law & kind Behavior, 20, 629653. Sheskin, D. (2004). vade mecum of parametric and non-parametric statistical procedures (3rd ed. ). Boca Raton, FL Chapman & star sign/CRC. Sporer, S. L. , Penrod, S. D. , Read, D. , & Cutler, B. L. (1995). Choosing, confidence, and accuracy A meta-analysis of the confidence-accuracy relation in eyewitness identif ication studies. psychological Bulletin, 118, 315327. Van Zandt, T. (2000). ROC curves and confidence judgments in recognition memory. journal of observational Psychology Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 582600. 23 Law chirp Behav (2010) 34337347 347 ?Vickers, D. (1979). termination processes in visual perception. modern York academic Press. Weber, N. , & Brewer, N. (2003). The effect of judgment type and confidence scale on confidence-accuracy calibration in face recognition. journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 490499. Weber, N. , & Brewer, N. (2004). Confidence-accuracy calibration in exacting and relative face recognition judgements. Journal of data-based Psychology Applied, 10, 156172. Weber, N. , & Brewer, N. (2006). electropositive versus ban face recognition decisions Confidence, accuracy and response latency.Applied cognitive Psychology, 20, 1731. Wells, G. L. (1993). What do we know about eyewitness identifica- tion? American Psychologist, 48, 553571. Wells, G. L. , & Olson, E. A. (2002). eyewitness identification randomness gain from criminatory and exonerating behaviors. Journal of data-based Psychology Applied, 8, clv167. Wells, G. L. , Small, M. , Penrod, S. , Malpass, R. S. , Fulero, S. M. , & Brimacombe, C. A. E. (1998). eyewitness identification proce- dures Recommendations for lineups and photo spreads. Law & charitable Behavior, 22, 603647.