Can eyewitnesses correct for external influences on their lineup identifications? The actual/counterfactual assessment paradigm.
Real-world eyewitnesses are often asked whether their lineup responses were affected by various external influences, but it is unknown whether they can accurately answer these types of questions. The witness-report-of-influence mental-correction model is proposed to explain witnesses' reports of influence. Two experiments used a new paradigm (the actual/counterfactual paradigm) to examine eyewitnesses' abilities to report accurately on the influence of lineup manipulations. Eyewitnesses were administered either confirming feedback or no feedback (Experiment 1, n = 103), or a cautionary instruction or no cautionary instruction (Experiment 2, n = 114). Eyewitnesses then gave actual responses (retrospective confidence, view, and attention measures in Experiment 1; identification decision in Experiment 2) as well as counterfactual responses stating how they would have responded in the alternative condition. Results across both studies showed an asymmetric estimation of influence pattern: Eyewitnesses who received an influencing manipulation estimated significantly less of a change in their responses than eyewitnesses who did not receive an influencing manipulation. A 48-hr delay between actual and counterfactual responses did not moderate any effects. Results are explained by witnesses' implicit theories of influence.
Charman
Steve D
SD
Department of Psychology, Iowa State University, USA.
Wells
Gary L
GL
D001288:Attention; D003415:Crime / Q000523:psychology*; D003657:Decision Making; D030141:Feedback, Psychological; D006801:Humans; D007600:Judgment; D011939:Mental Recall; D012153:Retention, Psychology; D012931:Social Environment; D014741:Video Recording; D014796:Visual Perception