The effects of post ‐identification feedback and age on retrospective eyewitness memory

Two studies examined the effects of post-identification feedback, age, and retention interval on participants' memories and beliefs about memories for a videotaped event, as captured by a store surveillance camera. After viewing the video, they were then asked to identify the suspect from a target-absent photo line-up. After making their identification, some participants were given information suggesting that their identification was correct, while others were given no information about the accuracy of their identification. In both experiments participants who received confirming feedback indicated they were more confident in their identification, paid more attention to the video, and that they were more willing to testify in court than those who received no feedback. The confidence inflation effects of post-identification feedback did not vary with retention interval or age. These results are consistent with a position focusing on accessibility, which suggests that witnesses have little or no retrievable recollection of how sure they were at the time of their identification. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

[1]  Elizabeth F. Loftus,et al.  Who remembers best? Individual differences in memory for events that occurred in a science museum , 1992 .

[2]  A. Baddeley.  Human Memory: Theory and Practice, Revised Edition , 1990 .

[3]  E F Loftus,et al.  Semantic integration of verbal information into a visual memory. , 1978, Journal of experimental psychology. Human learning and memory.

[4]  Mara Mather,et al.  (www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/acp.857 Source Monitoring and Suggestibility to Misinformation: Adult Age-Related Differences , 2022 .

[5]  F. Craik,et al.  Age differences in memory for item and source information. , 1987, Canadian journal of psychology.

[6]  Elizabeth A. Olson,et al.  Distorted retrospective eyewitness reports as functions of feedback and delay. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[7]  G. Wells,et al.  What do we know about eyewitness identification? , 1993, The American psychologist.

[8]  G. Wells,et al.  Distortions in Eyewitnesses' Recollections: Can the Postidentification-Feedback Effect Be Moderated? , 1999 .

[9]  E. Greene,et al.  The Suggestibility of Older Witnesses , 2000 .

[10]  H. A. Walters,et al.  The impact of general versus specific expert testimonyand eyewitness confidence upon mock juror judgment , 1986 .

[11]  R. Malpass,et al.  Eyewitness Identification Procedures: Recommendations for Lineups and Photospreads , 1998 .

[12]  S. Penrod,et al.  Juror sensitivity to eyewitness identification evidence , 1990 .

[13]  A. D. Yarmey.  Adult Age and Gender Differences in Eyewitness Recall in Field Settings1 , 1993 .

[14]  Elizabeth F. Loftus,et al.  Time went by so slowly: Overestimation of event duration by males and females , 1987 .

[15]  Gary L. Wells,et al.  The Confidence of Eyewitnesses in Their Identifications From Lineups , 2002 .

[16]  J. Bartlett,et al.  Age differences in accuracy and choosing in eyewitness identification and face recognition , 1999, Memory & cognition.

[17]  T. Valentine,et al.  The effects of the age of eyewitnesses on the accuracy and suggestibility of their testimony , 1997 .

[18]  Saul M. Kassin,et al.  On the "general acceptance" of eyewitness testimony research. A new survey of the experts. , 2001, American Psychologist.

[19]  S. Penrod,et al.  Eyewitness identification evidence: Evaluation commonsense evaluations. , 1997 .

[20]  A. Memon,et al.  On the "general acceptance" of eyewitness testimony research. A new survey of the experts. , 2001, The American psychologist.

[21]  Gary L. Wells,et al.  The Tractability of Eyewitness Confidence and Its Implications for Triers of Fact , 1981 .

[22]  W. Hoyer,et al.  Accuracy and qualities of real and suggested memories: nonspecific age differences. , 2001, The journals of gerontology. Series B, Psychological sciences and social sciences.

[23]  Gary L. Wells,et al.  The malleability of eyewitness confidence: co-witness and perseverance effects , 1994 .

[24]  V. Reyna,et al.  Memory loci of suggestibility development: Comment on Ceci, Ross, and Toglia (1987). , 1988 .

[25]  J. Bartlett,et al.  Influence of post-event narratives, line-up conditions and individual differences on false identification by young and older eyewitnesses , 2000 .

[26]  D. Dunning,et al.  Distinguishing accurate from inaccurate eyewitness identifications via inquiries about decision processes , 1994 .

[27]  Steven D. Penrod,et al.  CHOOSING, CONFIDENCE, AND ACCURACY : A META-ANALYSIS OF THE CONFIDENCE-ACCURACY RELATION IN EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATION STUDIES , 1995 .

[28]  W. Elliott.  Memory and Aging , 2000 .

[29]  D. Judges.  Two Cheers for the Department of Justice's Eyewitness Evidence: A Guide for Law Enforcement , 2000 .

[30]  S. Ceci,et al.  Age Differences in Suggestibility: Narrowing the Uncertainties , 1987 .

[31]  Elizabeth A. Olson,et al.  The damaging effect of confirming feedback on the relation between eyewitness certainty and identification accuracy. , 2002, The Journal of applied psychology.

[32]  N. Schwarz,et al.  When debiasing backfires: accessible content and accessibility experiences in debiasing hindsight. , 2002, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[33]  P. Frazier,et al.  Research on Gender and the Law: Where Are We Going, Where Have We Been? , 1998 .

[34]  Aging and lineup performance at long retention intervals: effects of metamemory and context reinstatement. , 2001, The Journal of applied psychology.

[35]  Gary L. Wells,et al.  "Good, you identified the suspect": Feedback to eyewitnesses distorts their reports of the witnessing experience. , 1998 .

[36]  Age differences in source forgetting: effects on reality monitoring and on eyewitness testimony. , 1989, Psychology and aging.