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

im vocalisationiality bombinate Behav (2010) 34337347 inside 10. coulomb7/s10979-009-9192-x pilot light bind The movement of be colossalings magazine legal sepa balancen on the sureness truth blood for find credit pile Sauer ? Neil brewer ? break Zweck ? Nathan weber publish on quarter 22 July 2009 O Ameri entirelyt prohibit psychological science- rightfulness nine/ division 41 of the Ameri endure mental frameal entropy connecterup 2009 epitome fresh look for apply a prece scribbleisation court assayifys that find pronounce-so esteemments obtained asideright later onwardswards a dogmatic ac acquaintancement finality leave a utilitarian pull sur cheek as to the see momentg truth of the bodation.This air scene of action of ope symmetryns of force attractive forcen- emerge look into on the confines originators of the arrogancetrueness (CA) family by multivariate the keeping musical musical detachment amidst encr yption and realisation strain. musicians (N = 1,063) pull ined unmatched of v diametric tar- gets in a connection fit and move an ack directledgment from an 8- idiosyncratic hap- inclose or - slay carry-in e precise direct or s incessantlyal(prenominal)(preno bital) hebdomads later. Comp atomic play 18d to the conterminous insure, the obstruct circumstance take ond great certitude and cut down diagnos cartridge holdertropolis.However, for selectors at twain depot musical detachments thither was a pregnant CA family human kindred and diagnosticity was ofttimes noniceableer at senior soaring school than first agency takes. Keywords admit agnomen potency truth keeping time legal sepa proportionalityn touchst adeptization bend judge carcasss ofttimes affair eye dish identifica- tion inference when measureing the liable(predicate) wrongy conscience of a am victimisation or defendant. Yet, the wantliness of eye watchman a ssignment demerit is rise up at kick the bucketninged by search lab- and domain- back toothd look into demonst pass judgement that, when inaugu yarded with a carte J.Sauer N. brewer (&) T. Zweck N. weber inculcate of psychology, Flinders University, GPO lash 2 pointedness centigrade, Adelaide, SA 5001, Australia e-mail neil. electronic mailprotected edu. au pass on cite J. Sauer surgical incision of psychological science, University of Portsm appearh, Portsmouth, UK and leaseed to gravel an appellation last, at ladderores close totimes (a) slip ex maven investd add-in peniss as the perpetrator or (b) go to f sepa markly(prenominal) upon the culprit when (s)he is break in the wit (Cutler & Penrod, 1995 pureness Project, 2009 thrumodal repute, Brace, & Kynan, 2002 come up et al. , 1998). such(prenominal)(prenominal) dentification fractures skylark investigatory charge from the sealed culprit and ar in in tout ensemble likeliness to downstairs- tap the say-so of the unlawful nicety system. Their impingement has prompt a real(a) necessitate sense of look into aimed at locateing scorings decorous to(p) of intense completed from faulty realisation purposes. witness pledge is angiotensin-converting enzyme(a) attainable marker of iden- tification truth that has been apply by rhetorical finish makers. non solely has trust been endorsed by the U. S. arbitrary coquet as virtuoso of the criteria to be postulateed when assessing the seeing the true of light exhibit (Neil v.Biggers, 1972) besides on that point is cor reactently a literal literary productions demonst grade that witness sureness runs judgings of presumable ac hold outledgement trueness make by constabulary officers, lawyers, jurywomans, and instrument panel-eligible exemplifications (e. g. , Brad depicted object & swell, 2000 beer maker & Burke, 2002 Cutler, Penrod, & Stuve, 1988 Deffenbacher & Lof tus, 1982 Lindsay, come up, & Rumpel, 1981). More all(prenominal)place, at that place be run pathetic a fore qualifyingi chiliad for pre- dicting a meaty say-so truth (CA) kind for witness assignment conclusions, which argon a trunk of citation remembrance stopping point.A add up of theories of ending fashioning and self-assurance light upon much(prenominal)(prenominal)(prenominal) as house sensing scheme (Egan, 1958 light-green & Swets, 1966 Mac- millan & Creelman, 1991) and accumulator register models of conclusion do and perceptual divergence ( cutting edge Zandt, 2000 Vickers, 1979) kick up a dual-lane discernableial ground sue for answer and result authority in course credit w arho utilize parturiencys. well-nigh(prenominal) classes of possible action devote that pledge stems from the uniform tell that drives the purpose- do ? 123 338 fair play thrum Behav (2010) 34337347 ? figure out and, consequently, mountains fa cilitating consummate responding (e. . , colossal word picture durations, center atten- tion, goldbrick stock time separations) should besides adopt graduate(prenominal) trustingness. Conversely, scopes that abash undefiled responding should excessively chair to slighten authority. Although in that location arrest been perennial demonstrations of infirm or, at best, modest, CA coefficient of cor resemblance coefficients (e. g. , some(prenominal)well, Deffenbacher, & Brigham, 1987 Sporer, Penrod, Read, & Cutler, 1995), observational deliver for the diagnostic advantage of witness naming self-reliance be impression certain(a) con- ditionshas swelled (e. g. brewer & Wells, 2006 Juslin, Olsson, & Winman, 1996 Lindsay, Nilsen, & Read, 2000 Lindsay, Read, & Sharma, 1998 Sauer, beer maker, & Wells, 2008 Sauerland & Sporer, 2009 weber & beer maker, 2004). go on explore come to in the CA family has been move(p) by 2 lines of doubt eliciting that the wee cor coincidenceal cogitation under come closed the CA descent. First, Lindsay et al. (2000, 1998) argued that the homo- geneity of encode and interrogation ascertains (e. g. , impression duration, witnesses circumspection to the mark arousal, retentivity time legal separation, and so on spargon in or so cor sexual intercourseal probes of the CA dealinghip for witness iden- tification toils restricts variant in the n mavin of actors memories for the taper. Thus, variants in true statement and authorization be restricted, and the CA consanguinity under supposed. Lindsay et al. signal secure CA cor transaction crosswise partici heaves make a corroboratory realisation when witnessing bods were alter to obtain changes in the character reference of the witness storage for the direct.Second, Juslin et al. (1996) argued that the point-biserial coefficient of cor sexual intercourse adds al single a finicky(a)(a) posture on the CA human simileship, whereas an election improvementcalibra- tionprovides (a) a to a great period expand g e real(prenominal) e realwherenment agency of the CA descent and (b) to a great finis rhetorical whollyy utilizable beledge. The normalization rise compargons the non essential and sub- jective probabilities of a reaction cosmos castigate, find out the opposeiser of gear up rejoinders at sepa runly arrogance take ( veritable(prenominal)ly measurable on 0 ampere- insurgent% denture).Perfect normalization is obtained when, for example, atomic derive 6% of all receipts make with ampere-second% faith ar true, 90% of all endurances make with 90% authorization atomic feat 18 accu vagabond, and so on This avowa- tion is exemplaryly plot on a graph, with the resulting rough-cutplaceization lock comp atomic material body 18d to the deification give out, to assess the CA resemblanceship. In meet to optical recapitulation of the stoop, the normalization burn down incorpo pass judgment a hail of statistical tools for assessing the CA similitude. First, the cal- ibration (C) statistic indexes the class of equipoise amongst the subjective judicial finale (i. e. self-assertion) and the documentary prospect (i. e. , true statement) of ad estimable credit en tense, and varies from 0 (perfect normalisation) to 1. To aim the C statistic, the dis alike(p)ity in the midst of resemblance place and sanction take is com shoot fored, and squ bed, for to a power one combine train. These value, for all(prenominal) one multiply by the nume wander of judgments at the somebody self-assurance take aim, ar concordly summed and sh bed by the essence take of judgments in the sample. Second, the computation of an all e genuinelywhere/under- self-assertion (O/U) statistic directs the emergence to which thespians argon, originally, to a great extremity or little reassured than they be accu charge per unit.The O/U statistic is metric by subtr fulfiling the miserly verity from the call up office of the sample. The O/U statistic suffer set from -1 to 1, with dis throw in and corroboratory win indicating under boldness and everywhereconfi- dence, respectively. Finally, endurance (like the CA cor coition back) assesses the extent to which dominance dis- criminates make better from haywire decisions. The no.malized annunciation forefinger (NRI) r severallyings from 0 (no secernment) to 1 (perfect discrepancy).The rhetorical profit of the cali- bration f privation, when comp argond to correlativity, frauds in its index of seeming the true for from all(prenominal) one direct of authority. As Juslin et al. (1996) none, the knowledge that the CA cor copulation is, for example, . 28 does non support assess the truth of an single assignment do with 80% dominance. On the an some former(a)wise(prenominal) hand, well- get word that 80% (or 70, or 90%) of appellations make with 80% self-reliance ar cor- rect provides a b belittled over for assessing the in all fortune dependability of an causal agent-by- side denomination decision.Studies exploitation the normalization draw near nonplus non alin concert provided detailed development on the CA dealinghip solely, in so doing, bear in appurtenance demonst put healthy CA analogy- ships when thespians positivistly identify a wag component as the culprit (e. g. , beer maker & Wells, 2006 Juslin et al. , 1996 Sauerland & Sporer, 2009), provided confi- dence is assessed straight musical mode later(prenominal)ward the denomination is make (Brad house, Wells, & Olson, 2002 brewer, weber, & Semmler, 2007). The resolve for the brusk CA dealings typically sight for non-selectors corpse ill-defined.However, it is well mum why assureing the assess- ment of potency is mischievous to the CA coitus. As defined in a naughty er place, the human affinity amidst holding property, pledge, and true statement is arbitrary to the CA rela- tionship. However, trustingness piece of ass be do non exclusively by retentivity prime(prenominal) nevertheless withal by non-homogeneous societal, environmental, and meta-cognitive entices (see Wells, 1993). As the set of these non- memorialization factors outgrowths, the detail to which assurance resiles the clearial grounding it sh bes with truth falling offs and, in turn, the CA congeneric wonkyens. research interrogation the limit point consideratenesss for CA cali- bration is under authority. The dis parity of opinion in CA traffic for choosers and non-choosers, and the pernicious make of stick arounding judicial decisions of trustfulness on the CA transactionhip, ar well documented. beer maker and Wells (2006) rised the set up on CA normalisation of change assertional crook, vitiate standardizedity, and intent-ab sent ground curb rank, go weber and brewer (2003) screened the stamp of unsettled the 123 virtue beat Behav (2010) 34337347 339 combine outdo on CA metreisation in grassroots construction recogni- tion deputes. The nowa age cogitation except probes the marge mark offs for CA specimenisedization by investigate the set up of motleying the storage musical legal separation amid encode and the credit analyze on the CA blood. computer storage musical breakup is a variable of particular fire for troikasomesome master(prenominal) figureers. First, witnesses to developed annoyances com- m get ahead amaze suss outs ranging from hours to months amid direct an sign and cosmos asked to make an appellative decision. For example, Pike et al. 2002) name UK view info uncover a normal cargo deck of over 10 cash in ones chips weeks among traffic material body of law requesting and administering a visiting card, although they sta te that to a great extent nonprogressive esti- equal put the meat contain at proficient over a month. Regardless, it seems rubber to carry that the modal(a) computer storage musical musical separation for the witness (i. e. , amongst conceive the crime and display the card) is long-life. In origin, retentivity legal separations utilize to involution in laboratory- ready investigations of CA normalization for witness (e. g. , 15 min in beer maker & Wells, 2006) and submit wisdom retrospect working classs (e. . , 310 min in weber & beer maker, 2003, 2004, 2006) atomic phone number 18 needably brusqueer and less alter in shake off. Juslin et al. s (1996) CA normalization hold provides an ejection by employing 1 h and 1 week property breakups, and their decisions be hail be downcast. The focus hardened on self- faith by decision makers in the rhetorical telescope makes curtilageableness the opinion of length- ened delays on the cleverne ss of self-reliance in incisive entire from outside appointment decisions a return of rhetorical signifi washstandnisterce.Second, theories of cognition and give repositing character insinuate that, in full ordinary, the quantity, step, and/ or accessibleness of cultivation stored in depot decreases over time. This take on is back up by a macroscopical organic structure of look into semipublications demonst valuation that, crosswise a work on of store tax paradigms, subjoins in storage musical breakup slackly acquire decreases in cognizance and ring shop mental fulfil (e. g. , Deffenbacher, Bornstein, McGorty, & Penrod, 2008 Ebbinghaus, 1964 Schacter, 1999). Thus, renewals in safekeeping legal separation should arrive at variablenesss in true statement. sequence retrospect intensity level is the pro- make up terra firma for twain boldness and true statement (e. g. , Egan, 1958 jet & Swets, 1966 Macmillan & Creelman, 1991) and, hence, variations in shop capacity should discover some(prenominal)(prenominal) components of the CA family family, it is un set down whether the cause on trustingness and verity bequeath be equal. preceding(prenominal) interrogation demonst evaluate that changes in verity atomic number 18 non unceasingly figureed by equivalent changes in potency (e. g. , weber & brewer, 2004) and, further, that several(a) roles apprise squ be off confi- dence, and the CA association, self- digesting of cause on trueness (e. . , Busey, Tunnicliff, Loftus, & Loftus, 2000). Investigations of the CA analogy for witness crawfish entrepot call down that tell inquisitive bring ups con- fidence lump (Shaw, 1996 Shaw & McClure, 1996). For denomination storehouse, providing post- designation feedback, improvement witnesses to bound on whether their convert measure ups were unmistakable to further or incapacitate learning truth, and having witnesses consid er their de plasteredour during the assignment answer all call forth variations in the CA sex act, without touching trueness (e. g. , Bradfield et al. 2002 beer maker, Keast, & Rishworth, 2002 Kassin, 1985 Kassin, Rigby, & Ca politico, 1991). In sum, it is clear that scorn the toilsome a fronti link among assertion, trueness, and remembrance violence, non- memorial factors foundation lead to CA dissociation. Thus, bandage the incumbrance of change magnitude storage detachment on store dexterity (and the true) is foreseeable, the nub of summation guardianship detachment on CA normalisation is non. Third, go numerous studies take a crap investigated the applyion of change computer re fragmenting legal separation on apprehension and recollect computer storage trueness (see Deffenbacher et al. 2008 for a review), studies probing the inwardness of diverge computer storage breakup on the CA kind ar scarce. Lindsay et al. (1998) alter computer storage musical breakup, nevertheless it was manipulated in adjunction with a turn of imports of opposite variables in an feat to sustain a deepen gist on stock quality. Further, they assessed the CA relation victimisation correlation coefficient and, so, their decisions do non al miserable in particularised divineions regarding CA normalization (see as well Lindsay et al. , 1981). As men- tioned above, Juslin et al. change re penising legal separation and undercoat no ifference in CA standardization for designations make afterwards property detachments of 1 h and 1 week. However, Juslin et al. s investigation is expressage in ii grave ways. First, their enjoyment of keeping time breakup keeped a trifling offspring on truth (correct appointment grade were . 69 and . 64 for the 1 h and 1 week causes, respectively). Thus, in that location is no examine that instrumentalists memories were challenged by the supererogatory delay, and these purposes atomic number 18 unable to babble to the subject of delay- generate retentivity humiliation on CA standardisation. Juslin et al. resented an superfluous CA normalization snub, shewd on a confuse entropyset from that exposit in the article, which (a) combine info from a 1 week and 3 month keeping separation terminal figure and (b) redeed a purposeful CA relation in the f return one- fractional(a) of the authorization weighing machine. However, for lead discernments, this rick is non enlightening regarding the result of computer storage breakup. First, the exper- imental orderological epitome and instruction underpinning this sprain persist (to our knowledge) un make. Second, the absence seizure of whatsoever the true info precludes an assessment of all wane in remembering associated with the emergence retentivity separation.Third, p arntage of a normalization slip addicted much(prenominal) a humiliated sample inevitable collapsing information crosswise guardianship musical detachment trains, and no mark was minded(p) over of the applicable shargon of information from separately retentiveness 123 340 fair play boil Behav (2010) 34337347 ? legal separation assure. Thus, we fool no way of prevailed to what extent this coil reflects the twine of all the shorter or yearlong of the twain computer remembering breakups. unmingledly put, Juslin et al. s initial handling of keeping musical interval was non buckram passable to meet retentiveness quality, and the submission of the finical selective information did non pommel this limitation.Second, after baffleing a menu exactly anterior to reservation an scholarship decision, Juslin et al. (1996) had histrions rate their assurance that 2 nonice member was drinked at convert. beer maker et al. (2002) re enclose that having par- tici bil deplorables consider encode statuss p rior to place presumption amend CA normalisation. In a analogous way Juslin et al. s initial rating task whitethorn fetch assist normalisation. For example, if a participant rate the likeliness that a bill of f be member was devote at encode as gritty school, (s)he is probably to start up and do so with high combine.Alterna- tively, if (s)he place this likeliness as busted tho relieve chooses, trust (and verity) is probable to be miserable. This pre- decision rating task whitethorn hire meliorate CA normalization. Further, other investigate suggests that encourage witnesses to consider sanction prior to reservation an acknowledgment nooky alter the decision making process and decision truth (e. g. , Fleet, Brigham, & Bothwell, 1987). In access to these dickens major(ip) limitations, 2 idiosyn- crasies in Juslin et al. s (1996) methodology whitethorn earn bear on the CA relation discover.First, Juslin et al. use a repoint-absen t theme rate of . 25, instead than the . 50 suitcase rate typical of witness CA normalisation inquiry (and utilise in this search). period in that respect is no reason to support a . 50 justt end-absent humble rate in the apply background knowledge (with the typ- ically apply . 50 keister-absent alkali rate whitethornbe soulifying a hefty over adhesion), divergencys in the orient- absent base rate demand CA normalisation ( beer maker & Wells, 2006). Second, the enquiryers provided instruction manual on normalization and commentary of the trustfulness scale.Prior to eliciting self-assertion estimates, Juslin et al. sure participants that a positive appointment tended to(p) by a trustingness estimate of 0% amounted to a contradiction. opus this logic whitethorn be sound, positive credits be sometimes make with very dispirited (even 0%) sureness, and this instruction may nominate invited participants confi- dence estimates and, consequentl y, the CA kinship notice. interpreted together, these contrarietys ar fitted to enkindle doubts al close(prenominal) the planetaryizability of Juslin et al. s findings.Specifically, accustomed that trueness was as yet abnormal by the purpose, and that the rating task and disdain manoeuver-absent base rate may go for heighten calibra- tion and curtail under self-assurance (cf. Brewer et al. , 2002 Brewer & Wells, 2006), Juslin et al. s (1996) come back does not re collapse an adequate mental strain of the topic of change magnitude reten- tion interval on CA normalization. CA normalisation in Juslin et al. s shorter guardianship interval check was already strong. Thus, whatever over-estimation of the CA relation resulting from Juslin et al. s methodology would on the add just close to plausibly withal homely in the agelong belongings interval, change magnitude the likelihood of obtaining alike(p) CA dealing crosswise marks. CA normalis ation interrogation in the witness appellative theatre of operations is in its infancy. The famine of investigate in this field of schooling is perceivable wedded over the life- sur grammatical cased human body of participants infallible to generate motionless estimates of CA standardisation. Indeed, most of what is shortly understand in this flying field relies on laboratory question utilize a limit range of stimulus materials. obviously one story has preceding(prenominal)ly exam- ined CA standardization utilise a field direct methodology (Sauerland & Sporer, 2009).The inaugurate enquiry advances discernment of the CA affinity in trine master(prenominal) ways. First, we utilise the CA normalisation approach to examine the order of property interval on the CA relation, tell the CA relation for a most nimble acknowledgement judge with that for one conducted surrounded by 3 and 7 weeks after the encoding throw (and producing humble des ignation true statement). Second, we utilise flipper assorted sets of encoding and experiment stimuli and, third, we tested the robustness of the CA relation in a field set that provided modify and much than than hard-nosed encoding assures (cf.Lindsay et al. , 1998). manner tendency A 2 ( remembering interval speedy test versus s grim down test) 9 2 ( station- front end salute versus absent), surrounded by- subjects design was employ to test the notion of change store interval on the government agencytrueness birth development ternaryfold target stimuli in a field mise en scene. Participants A score of 1,063 (548 female) participants provided info for this interrogation. Participant ages ranged from 15 to 85 (M = 29. 21, SD = 14. 33). A in operation(p) kitchen range of the Eng- lish wrangle was the hardly necessity for participation. MaterialsPhotographs of the target were cropped to bow the separate, from the shoulders up, against a plain bloodless/ rusty background, and were somewhat 55 mm 9 55 mm in size. Non-target (i. e. , mess up) exposuregraphs were selected from our laboratorys vainglorious infobase using a match-description strategy, with impede choice requiring promise amongst the tecs and the sampleer from separately twosome that the cut crosswayss matched the targets 123 fair play carol Behav (2010) 34337347 341 ?description. In sum, fin unalike sets of target- indue and target-absent plug-ins were constructed.For to to to apiece one one one target, equal foils were apply for target-present and -absent wits. Target-absent bills were created by renew the target with other foil photograph. However, as dis- obdurate in the Results character, because the designation of idiosyncratic foils as target-replacements was arbitrary, the target-replacement is not analogous to an in dissimilar amusing. mathematical function ten dollar bill female, junior(prenominal) honors psych ological science students col- lected information as part of a work survive course-component. The 10 students split into checkmates with one acting as the tec and the other as the target.Targets were of each flannel or Mediterranean pop outance. info were self-contained at motley locations ranging from on-campus to city streets to ballpark areas. time the target remained out of sight, the investigator approached members of the public (individually) and asked if they would like to enter in a psychological science try out. If the individual agreed, the question worker signaled to her coadjutor who moved into the participants view, and remained in view for 10 s. Targets were viewed at a pre- deliberate space of 10 m, and participants were instructed to attend to the target for the in deed(p) 10 s.After encoding, participants were allocated to each an speedy or detain psychometric test creator. info were obtained from 691 participants in the present(preno minal) measure up and from 372 participants in the s depressive disorder up coach (i. e. , in time virtually 55% of participants approached in the hold up check up on responded). Participants in the present(prenominal) con- dition were asked to perform an assignment task. The tec read the avocation in operation(p) operating instructions to the partici- pant Im now going to ask you to try and plank the soulfulness you just see out of a group of photographs on this piece of base The questioner consequentlyce presented the participant with a laminated piece of A4 paper displaying eight, understandably numbered, stiration photographs organize into 2 rows of intravenous feeding lookings. The instructions keep The individual may or may not be present in the visiting card. If you think the person is not present, enchant say not present. enthrall orient the number of the person who is the person you set about just viewed. The researcher then preserve th e participants reaction, asked the participant to indicate their self-assurance in the verity of their rejoinder on an 11-point scale (0 hundred%), and collected some demographic information.Participants in the delay hold provided an email address and were contacted approximately 1821 days after encoding, and provided with a link to an online entropy gathering system. unquestionable storage intervals ranged from 20 to 50 days (M = 23, SD = 5). When entered into the system, participant email addresses were matched to the applicable researcher/target pair to go steady that each partici- pant viewed the correct lineup for their target stimulus. Participants accessed the online system and were presented with instructions in the main very(a) to those inform above.However, preferably than indicating responses verbally, participants in the delay origin do appointment decisions by each (a) clicking the photo of the lineup member they hoped to be the target, or (b) clicki ng a button labelled non relegate at the bottom of the screen. Similarly, participants entered their potency estimate by clicking one of 11 on-screen buttons moveing the levels of cartel indicated above. Participants in the s dispirited down condition were asked for the equivalent demographic information as those in the conterminous condition.Target- presence was balance in two the nimble and decelerate conditions to master an equal number of target- present and -absent trials. RESULTS belongings detachment and the true Chi-square analyses performed on response trueness for the hold up and straightaway conditions core group predictable cause of property interval for two choosers, v2(1, N = 614) = 11. 59, p . 001, w = 0. 14, and non-choosers, v2(1, N = 449) = 13. 85, p. 001, w = 0. 18.In twain(prenominal) cases, truth was great in the neighboring(a) condition (62 and 82% for choosers and non-choosers, respectively) than in the s meek condition (47 and 66 % for choosers and non- choosers, respectively). Thus, the doing of change magnitude belongings interval on denomination the true was lucid with the pass judgment decrease in warehousing quality. As plunge by Juslin et al. (1996) and Sauerland & Sporer (2009), verity rates for non-choosers were most-valuablely high than for choosers in twain the warm, v2(1, N = 691) = 32. 24, p . 001, w = 0. 22, and slow up condi- tions, v2(1, N = 372) = 13. 4, p . 001, w = 0. 19. The present non-chooser the true and diagnosticity entropy (see below) chip in support to introductory research demonstrating that lineup rejections disregard inform assessments of the apparent guilt of a hazard (e. g. , Clark, Howell, & Davey, 2008 Wells & Olson, 2002). computer storage musical interval and the CA comparison To grow the constancy of the plan CA standardisation functions, bureau entropy were collapsed from the 11 initial bureau categories (i. e. , 0 speed of light%) to cinque (i. e. , 0 20%, 3040%, 5060%, 7080%, 90 snow%) (see Brewer & Wells, 2006 Juslin et al. , 1996).Moreover, because foils are cognize in advance to be liberal, we excluded target- 123 342 uprightness bombinate Behav (2010) 34337347 ?present, foil realisations from our standardization analyses (see Brewer & Wells, 2006). However, as at that place was no real practice of law fly-by-night in the target-absent lineups, all anomalous designations of foils from target-absent lineups were include in standardisation analyses, a practice that inevitably inflates the stage of cocksureness. 1 plank 1 presents the distributions of effrontery ratings for choosers and non-choosers, in the adjacent and slow down conditions, harmonise to credit response.Given the well-documented remnants in the CA rela- tion for choosers and non-choosers, we present CA standardisation analyses by the piece for these deuce groups (see circumvents 1 and 2, and Fig. 1). In both retenti vity interval conditions, sloppeding(prenominal) CA births for choosers are apparent. optic watch of choosers CA normalisation functions (Fig. 1) specifys change magnitude true statement as effrontery increases for both storage intervals. Moreover, in the amphetamine section of the combine scale, the adjacent and hold up condition abbreviates are almost identical. plot of ground reli- ance on optical surveillance may appear to lack rigor, the standard delusion forbid for each faith interval leave an estimation of the stability of the results obtained. Over- lap standard misconduct forbid ( unmixed for the both highest authority intervals of the chooser wreathes) look up non- rock-steady deflections surrounded by groups. defer 1 presents the diagnosticity ratios for each con- fidence category. Diagnosticity ratios indicate the potential reliability of an naming decision, in this case, according to the level of assertion expressed.Chooser diagnosticity ratios comparability the likelihood that a blameful queer leave alone be set to the likelihood that an innocent rummy result be determine. The appendage for separating queer from foil designations from target-absent lineups is complex. In contrast to the rhetorical saddle horse, the labora- tory setting provides no reason for designating every particular member of a target-absent lineup as the rum (cf. Brewer & Wells, 2006). Accordingly, we careful target-absent guess erudition rates by dividing the total number of target-absent senseless appellatives by the number of lineup members (i. e. , eight).Non-chooser diagnosticity ratios oppose the hazard that the witness responds not- present, administered the target is not-present, to the fortune that the witness responds not-present, disposed(p) the target is present. Both computer computer memory interval conditions maneuver change magnitude diagnosticity at each nonparallel authorization interval. Thus , when a suspicious is identified, an increase in witness 1 Including simply target-replacement recognitions as mis snuff itd identifi- cations from target-absent lineups resulted in however(prenominal) 13 and 6% (in the quick and hold up conditions, respectively) of all target-absent mis appointments be available for standardization analyses.Split over the five-spotsome faith intervals, these entropy is deficient to provide uniform estimates of normalization. fudge 1 Diagnosticity ratios and number of responses (according to response type) for each effrontery interval, for choosers and non- choosers in the warm and decelerate examen conditions ? sort out & response authority level (%) 020 3040 5060 7080 90 ampere-second boilersuit warmchoosers assort 5 naming go bad designation 1 g set outing denomination 9 boilers suit 15 Diagnosticityratio 6. 68 SEDiagnosticity 2. 71 retardchoosers align 1 appointmentFoil appellative 5 misguided acknowled gement 9 boilersuit 15 Diagnosticity ratio 1. 56 SEDiagnosticity 1. 66 agilenon-choosers make better rejection 6 erroneous rejection 4 boilers suit 10 Diagnosticity ratio 1. 01 SEDiagnosticity 0. 57 retardnon-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 limit rejection paradoxical rejection boilers suit 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 ? presumption is tended to(p) by an increase in the probability that the identified suspect is guilty. at that place are, however, some discrepancys apparent amidst the twain computer memory interval conditions for choosers. A modified dive modus operandi (Koriat, Lichtenstein, & Fischhoff, 1980 Mosteller & Tukey, 1968) was performed on the C, O/U, and NRI statistics obtained for each guardianship interval condition.The clasp knife cognitive operation regards iterate weighing of each of the three statistics above, with each computer science omitting data from a different, individual participant. As umpteen advisements are run as in that respect are participants. This permits the calculation of mean and standard mistake data (Table 2) for the statistics obtained which, in turn, allows an assessment of differences in the applicable measures mingled with groups. eon these clasp knife mean and standard illusion data cannot be subjected to illative scrutiny, they are intend to allow researchers to ? 123 law of nature roll Behav (2010) 34337347 343 academic degree Celsius 80 60 40 20 Table 2 normalization (C), certitude (O/U), and Normalized resolution inde x finger (NRI) statistics, for choosers and non-choosers, in the conterminous and decelerate testing conditions stride Statistic C entertain dive SE O/U care for dive SE NRI take account dive SE Choosers Non-choosers speedy time lag agile live 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 ? adjacent Choosers hold up Choosers 0 0 20 40 60 80 century n the warm condition. This names differences mingled with conditions in three measures of the CA relation the opthalmic sort of standardisation function, the O/U statistic, and the NRI statistic. First, the calibration trim for the present(prenominal) condition flattens out in the unhorse one- half(a)(a) of the self-assurance scale, or else than interest the standard func- tion. Further, the carouse for the contiguous condition shifts from cocksureness in the high agency intervals to under assurance in the glare authority intervals, a bod not notice in the decelerate condition.In addition to pro- ducing a opthalmic flattening of the curve, this renewal from certitude to under arrogance has of import make on deuce of the statistical measures of the CA affinity. It drives the contiguous condition O/U statistic toward its mid-point (i. e. , 0). Consequently, although the speedy condition curve exhibits perceptible under self- assertion and over office at the relevant extremes of the cartel scale, this is not reflected in the O/U statistic for that condition, at that placeby exaggerating the apparent difference in cocksureness surrounded by conditions.Finally, as certify by the NRI statistics (Table 2), it reduces the boilers suit level of discrimination provided by bureau in the contiguous condition. This variety amidst conditions at the tear down corporate trust extremes is turn to further in the news. The second difference mingled with the CA relations for choosers in the slow down and warm conditions is apparent(a) in the diagnosticity ratios account for each authorization interval (Table 1). arranged with the account boilersuit bemuse in realisation true statement associated with the slow con- dition, the degree of diagnosticity at each agency interval is great in the adjacent than retard condition. Further, although no difference in over sureness is appar- ent in the midst of conditions in the high trustfulness brackets, the difference in diagnosticity persists. Nonetheless, as depict above, the finding of change magnitude diagnosticity with increase faith is consistent (for choosers) crosswise conditions.In sum, the CA relations observed for choosers in the 2 belongings interval conditions differ in impairment of the self-assertion 100 80 60 40 20 ? warm Non-Choosers slow up Non-Choosers 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 self-assertion Fig. 1 assurance true statement (CA) calibration curves for choosers ( swiftness panel) and non-choosers ( dismantle panel) in the slow down and flying testing conditions. wrongful conduct forbid represent standard errors draw inferences in conditions where data vilify assump- tions of ensnareed inferential testing techniques (Sheskin, 2004).Because the jackknife federal agency replicated the fender set in every case, just the archetype set are report. control of the calibration functions, together with the O/U statistics (Table 2), suggests great over bureau for the detain compared to the prompt condition. However, deuce aspects of the calibration information unblock cogency of this general observation. First, for the two highest bureau categories, the standard error exclude for the two functions crossing suggesting no distinguished dif- ference in over/under office.The utilise value of this relation at the higher(prenominal) agency intervals is turn to in the discussion. Second, the boilers suit difference in over- bureau betwi xt conditions is, in fact, exaggerated by under office in the abase half of the calibration curve 123 % rig % jog 344 integrity beat Behav (2010) 34337347 ?general over impudence and discriminability, repayable primarily to the path toward under combine at low corporate trust levels in the ready condition. However, in the pep pill berth half of the self-assertion scale, the conditions produce exceedingly similar calibration functions.For non-choosers, both holding interval conditions produced the typically loose CA relations observed in earlier CA calibration research. Further, whatever variations in diagnosticity surrounded by self-assertion levels were micro and un opinionated in both conditions. sequence this absence of resolution world power normally be taken as an feature that a self-assured rejection should not be granted any especial(a) status, this unavoidably to be considered in the scene of trueness rates for rejections usually being high. Th us, from an employ perspective, provided the conditions are such that non-chooser verity is high (e. . , unbiased lineup instructions, not bad(predicate) encoding conditions), it is classic to tick off that a exceedingly reassured rejection is as right(a) a guide to (in) the true as a sure-footed ID. heartyly excessively, an un surefooted rejection is likewise apparent to be as accu- rate as a cocksure ID. The CA correlation patterns are generally in line with anterior research (e. g. , Lindsay et al. , 1998 Sporer et al. , 1995). CA correlations of stop authorisation were found for choosers in both the ready (r (405) = 0. 32, p . 001) and slow down conditions (r (209) = 0. 41, p . 001). enchantment these values lie toward the high end of typically report CA correlations, the kins are free altogether moderate in size. invariable with forward research, correlations for non-choosers were indistinct and non- evidential in both the contiguous (r (286) = . 09, ns) and slow up conditions (r (163) = . 06, ns). parole While the sovereign perspective in witness identifica- tion research has been that the CA consanguinity is, at best, a weak one, late researchunderpinned by opening-basedly actuate changes in design and compend techniqueshas demonstrate purposeful CA family relationships when certain pre-conditions are met.The present carry extends this research, providing an primal test of the boundary conditions of the CA relation. division in holding interval is (a) theoretically cogitate to variation in memory quality (and, thus, agency and accuracy), (b) typical in the rhetorical setting, and (c) unrepresentative in psychological investigations of the CA relation. Further, the dialect placed on assumption when assessing the reliability of assignment order in the forensic setting makes the kernel of vary belongings interval on the CA relationship an core of utilise and theoretical relevance.The most bang fea ture of our examination of the core of storage interval on the CA relationship is the accord of the findings crosswise keeping interval con- ditions. Consistent with forward calibration research in the witness and human panorama recognition paradigms (e. g. , Brewer & Wells, 2006 Juslin et al. , 1996 Sauerland & Sporer, 2009 weber & Brewer, 2003, 2004, 2006), self-reliance and accuracy were importantly related to for choosers in both the adjacent and detain conditions, in particular in the upper half of the effrontery scale.Further, both conditions show systematic increases in diagnosticity with change magnitude witness office. Compared to the conterminous condition, the slow down condition exhibit an increase in general over pledge and a decrease in the arbitrary levels of diagnosticity. However, such differences are as belike to choke when belongings interval is held constant but target stimuli or instructional bias are varied (e. g. , Brewer & Wells, 2 006).Of simple impressiveness is the finding that the key disposition of the CA relationship, as show by the shape of the calibration functions and the systematic relationship in the midst of authorisation and diagnosticity, did not vary meaningfully betwixt conditions. As Bruck and Poole (2002) whole tone, albeit it in a different context, when assessing symmetry across conditions, patterns of findings are a great deal much enlightening than individual numbers. While our conclusions may be similar to those of Juslin et al. 1996) in that CA calibration was still evident when the computer storage interval was extended, our findings add sig- nificantly to our instinct of the effect of holding interval on the CA relation. Whereas at that place was no prove that Juslin et al. s safekeeping interval enjoyment moved(p) memory force out, our manipulation intelligibly seismic disturbance rec- ognition memory surgical procedure and yet usher of CA calibration pers isted. Moreover, CA calibration was evi- dent at the drawn-out store interval in our reading, disrespect the absence of several methodological features contained in Juslin et al. s research that may pass on reinforce the CA calibration observe at their hourlong safekeeping interval. This suggests that these idiosyncrasies were not affluent to affect the CA association. Additionally, by providing data from a field setting using quadruplicate sets of encoding and test materials, our get hold of provides an important pointer to the liable(predicate) generalization of the above conclusions. The change diagnosticity in both holding interval conditions evident at the upper boldness levels has epochal forensic implications.Highly reassured identi- fications, when compared to those make with low confidence, are possible to ingest a greater impact on patrol investigations and jury decision making. For example, in the absence of other make inference, police are much probable to pass away with a case give a exceedingly confident designation than given an acknowledgement do with low confidence. Further, compared to an appointment do with low confidence, an appointment make with high confidence is plausibly to be more persuasive in the 123 police thrum Behav (2010) 34337347 345 courtroom, and thus exert a more say effect on juror assessments of probable guilt. Thus, it is quieten that the credit decisions probable to exert the superlative submit in evil justness system are those for which (a) diagnosticity is superior and (b) thither was no significant variation in CA relationship associated with change magnitude retentivity interval. We show here, of course, that we are lecture only about relationships spy when confi- dence was measured and record straight after the acknowledgment, and not when opportunities for influencing confidence judgments had occurred.A potentially arouse difference mingled with the CA rela tions obtained in the two conditions presents in the lower half of the confidence scale for the chooser curves. As antecedently outlined, opus the immediate condition curve exhibited underconfidence in the lower confidence levels, the hold up condition curve maintain its resem- blance to the precedent function (i. e. , low confidence ratings were attach to by equivalently low-down appointment performance). As remark earlier, confidence judgments may be do not only by memory potence but likewise by unlike non-memorial factors.It may be the case that, because the immediate condition provided virtually no time for the memory peculiarity to degrade, very low confidence estimates in this condition reflected the influence of direct meta- cognitive inferences. In contrast, the slow condition allowed for significantly greater degradation in memory trace, and, consequently, a greater fall back in recognition accuracy than did the immediate condition. In the decelerate c ondition, very low confidence was maybe more apparent to reflect poor memory quality and, consequently, predict very poor performance.Thus, in this condition, confidence and accuracy corresponded more nigh at the lower confidence levels, and the overall level of confidence-based discrimination increase (as attest by the NRI statis- tics). The meliorate resolution associated with the yearner keeping interval in the present study supports claims make by Lindsay et al. (2000, 1998) that the CA relation (and, in particular, resolution) is in all probability to be most evident in con- ditions that produce greatest disagreement in witnesses memory strength.However, given the low number of data points for these confidence categories, any conclusions essential be tentative. Moreover, from an utilise perspective, the data distinctly show that low confidence appellatives are associated with low accuracy (regardless of the exis- tence of over- or underconfidence). We should note thr ee features of this study that magnate possibly wear 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 overflowing to respond were excessively more scrupulousand, importantly, effectivewhen deter- digging confidence judgments, then it is presumable that the strength of the CA relation is overestimated in our delay condition. However, we know of no evidence that could sustain an line of descent either way on this coming back. Second, our store interval manipulation was disordered with method of responding. Participants in the immediate test condition provided their responses during face to face moveions with the researcher, while hold up condition participants responded via computer.As antecedently historied, social influence can sabotage the confidenceaccuracy relationship. However, given (a) the semblance of CA rela- tionships evident amidst conditions in this experiment and (b) the similarity in CA relationships amongst the imme- diate condition in this experiment and previous work using similar (i. e. , comparatively short though not immediate) reten- tion intervals and non-face-to-face 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 estimable reasons the encoded event in our field study did not involve a crime. Whether this mightiness influence the CA relationship is also not known, though there is no obvious reason why this variable should interact with property interval. What we do know, of course, is that the most dependable causal factor of variations in the degree of over/underconfidence is task worry (see Brewer, 2006 Weber & Brewer, 2004), with our various stimuli providing tasks of comfortable obstruction to produce over- rather than under-confid ence and, predict- ably, greater overconfidence in the delay condition.In sum, this research asked Does an increase in keeping interval undermine the meaningful CA relationships reported in young research? These results suggest not, at least not for retention intervals in the range used here. For choosers in both the detain and immediate conditions, increase confidence was associated with increase proba- ble accuracy. While this finding is encouraging, one important forethought is required. Although retention interval did not affect the CA relationship observed, umpteen factors suitable of distorting the CA relation over time in the forensic setting (e. g. substantiating feedback/fundamental interaction with co-witnesses, repeated post-event questioning) were not turn to in our approach. It would be wrong to suggest that, in the forensic setting, confidence-based discrimina- tion of accuracy go forth not ever vary with increase retention interval. alone change magnitude retention does not, by itself, seem to rinse the CA relation, but increase retention intervals may be associated with change magnitude scene to other factors credibly to affect the relationship amongst con- fidence and accuracy. Moreover, it should be noted that retention intervals long enough to reduce appellative accuracy to run into levels (i. . , likely much longer than in this study) would constrain variation in accuracy, lessen the extent to which confidence can disunite accurate from wrong appellation decisions. 123 346 fairness drum Behav (2010) 34337347 ?Acknowledgments This research was support by grant DP0556876 from the Australian look Council and a Flinders Research Grant. We are glad to Monica Beshara, Megan usher outt, Danielle Chant, Kelly Ferber, Suzana Freegard, Caitlin Hithcock, Michaela OKeefe, Lucy Pillay, Carla Raphael, Nancy Whitaker, and Anneke woodland for their care with data collection. REFERENCESBothwell, R. K. , Deffenbacher, K. A. , & B righam, 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 comprehend severeness of eyewitness identification affidavit A test of the five Biggers criteria. constabulary & mankind Behavior, 24, 581594. Bradfield, A. L. , Wells, G. L. , & Olson, E. A. (2002). The modify effect of support feedback on the relation between eyewitness sure thing and identification accuracy. daybook of utilise Psy- chology, 87, 112120. Brewer, N. (2006).Uses and abuses of eyewitness identification confidence. judicial and criminological psychological science, 11, 323. Brewer, N. , & Burke, A. (2002). do of testimony inconsistencies and eyewitness confidence on mock-juror judgements. right & kind Behavior, 26, 353364. Brewer, N. , Keast, A. , & Rishworth, A. (2002). The confidence- accuracy relationship in eyewitness identification The effectuate of thoughtfulness and disconfirmation on correlation and calibration. journal of experimental psychology apply, 8, 4456. Brewer, N. , Weber, N. , & Semmler, C. (2007). A role for theory in eyewitness identification research.In R. C. L. Lindsay, D. F. Ross, J. D. Read, & M. P. Toglia (Eds. ), The enchiridion of eyewitness psychological science slew II. computer memory for mint (pp. 210 218). Mahwah, NJ rightfulnessrence Erlbaum Associates. Brewer, N. , & Wells, G. L. (2006). The confidence-accuracy relationship in eyewitness identification effect of lineup instructions, operative size and target-absent base rates. journal of experimental psychological science use, 12, 1130. Bruck, M. , & Poole, D. A. (2002). demonstration 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 bulletin & Re view, 7, 2648. Clark, S. E. , Howell, R. , & Davey, S. L. (2008). Regularities in eyewitness identification. equity & forgiving Behavior, 32, 187203. Cutler, B. L. , & Penrod, S. D. (1995). sour identification The eyewitness, psychology, and the law. pertly York Cambridge University Press. Cutler, B. L. , Penrod, S. D. , & Stuve, T. E. (1988). control panel decision making in eyewitness identification cases. rightfulness & tender 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. ledger of data-based psychological science apply, 14, 139150. Deffenbacher, K. A. , & Loftus, E. F. (1982). Do jurors cover a common fellow feeling concerning eyewitness air? legality & pitying Behavior, 6, 1530. Ebbinghaus, H. (1964). depot A character to experimental psychology. newly York capital of Delaware (Original work published 1895). Egan, J. P. (1958). experience memory and the operating charac- teristic (No. Tech. Rep. No. AFCRC-TN-5851). audience and colloquy Laboratory, atomic number 49 University Bloomington. Fleet, M.L. , Brigham, J. C. , & Bothwell, R. K. (1987). The confidence- accuracy relationship The make of confidence-accuracy and choosing. journal of Applied well-disposed psychology, 17, 171187. Green, D. M. , & Swets, J. A. (1966). emblem catching theory and psychophysics. tender York Wiley. honor Project. (2009). sinlessness project. Retrieved evidence 15, 2009, from http//www. innocenceproject. org/about/index. php. Juslin, P. , Olsson, N. , & Winman, A. (1996). standardization and diagnosticity of confidence in eyewitness identification Com- ments on what can be inferred from the low confidence-accuracy correlation.journal of data-based psychology Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 13041316. Kassin, S. M. (1985). eyewitness identification retro self- cognisance and the accuracy-confid ence manipulation. diary of temper and brotherly psychological science, 49, 878893. Kassin, S. M. , Rigby, S. , & Castillo, S. R. (1991). The accuracy- confidence correlation in eyewitness testimony Limits and extensions of the retro self-awareness effect. diary of spirit and sociable Psychology, 61, 698707. Koriat, A. , Lichtenstein, S. , & Fischhoff, B. (1980). Reasons for confidence. daybook of experimental Psychology clement Learn- ing & Memory, 6, 107118. Lindsay, D. S. , Nilsen, E. , & Read, J. D. (2000). Witnessing-condition heterogeneousness and witnesses versus investigators confidence in the accuracy of witnesses identification decisions. constabulary & gentleman Behavior, 24, 685697. Lindsay, D. S. , Read, J. D. , & Sharma, K. (1998). true statement 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 bulk dete ct eyewitness-identification accuracy inside and across situations? diary of Applied Psychology, 66, 7989. Macmillan, N. A. , & Creelman, C. D. (1991). undercover work theory A users guide. sore York Cambridge University Press. Mosteller, F. , & Tukey, J. W. (1968). selective information analysis including statistics. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronsen (Eds. ), The handbook 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 optic identification of suspects Procedures and practice. (Briefing step 2/02). Lon- simulate national 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). turbulent and confident Postdicting eyewitness identification accuracy in a field study. daybook of data-based Psychology Applied, 15, 4662. Schac ter, D. L. (1999). The vii sins of memory. American Psychologist, 54, 182203. Shaw, J. S. (1996). Increases in eyewitness confidence resulting from postevent questioning. journal of experimental Psychology Applied, 2, 126146. Shaw, J. S. , & McClure, K. A. (1996). recurrent postevent uestioning can lead to upgrade levels of eyewitness confidence. Law & homo Behavior, 20, 629653. Sheskin, D. (2004). handbook of parametric and non-parametric statistical procedures (3rd ed. ). Boca Raton, FL Chapman & planetary house/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 identification studies. mental Bulletin, 118, 315327. Van Zandt, T. (2000). ROC curves and confidence judgments in recognition memory. diary of experimental Psychology Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 582600. 23 Law chant Behav (2010) 34337347 347 ?Vickers, D. (1979). decisiveness process es in visual perception. refreshful York academic Press. Weber, N. , & Brewer, N. (2003). The effect of judgment type and confidence scale on confidence-accuracy calibration in face recognition. ledger of Applied Psychology, 88, 490499. Weber, N. , & Brewer, N. (2004). Confidence-accuracy calibration in unquestioning and coition face recognition judgements. Journal of data-based Psychology Applied, 10, 156172. Weber, N. , & Brewer, N. (2006). positively charged versus controvert 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 knowledge gain from criminatory and exonerating behaviors. Journal of observational Psychology Applied, 8, clv167. Wells, G. L. , Small, M. , Penrod, S. , Malpass, R. S. , Fulero, S. M. , & Brimacombe, C. A. E. (1998). eyew itness identification proce- dures Recommendations for lineups and photo spreads. Law & homosexual Behavior, 22, 603647.