Abstract
After viewing or hearing a recorded simulated crime, participants were asked to identify the offender’s voice from a target-absent audio lineup. After making their voice identification, some participants were either given confirming feedback or no feedback. The feedback manipulation in experiment 1 led to higher ratings of participants’ identification certainty, as well as higher ratings on retrospective confidence reports, in both the immediate and delay groups. Earwitnesses who were asked about their identification certainty prior to the feedback manipulation (experiment 2) did not demonstrate the typical confidence-inflation associated with confirming feedback if they were questioned about the witnessing experience immediately; however, the effects returned after a week-long retention interval. The implications for the differential forgetting and internal-cues hypotheses are discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bradfield, A. L., Wells, G. L., & Olson, E. A. (2002). The damaging effect of confirming feedback on the relation between eyewitness certainty and identification accuracy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 112–120.
Clifford, B. R. (1980). Voice identification by human listeners: On earwitness reliability. Law and Human Behavior, 4, 373–394.
Douglass, A. B., & McQuiston-Surrett, D. (2006). Post-identification feedback: Exploring the effects of sequential photospreads and eyewitnesses’ awareness of the identification task. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 991–1007.
Douglass, A. B., Smith, C., & Fraser-Thill, R. (2005). A problem with double-blind photospread procedures: Photospread administrators use one eyewitness’s confidence to influence the id of another witness. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 543–562.
Douglass, A. B., & Steblay, N. (2006). Memory distortion in eyewitnesses: A meta-analysis of the post-identification feedback effect. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 859–869.
Durose, M. R., Levin, D. J., & Langan, P. A. (2001). Felony sentences in state courts, 1998. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Fein, S., McCloskey, A. L., & Tomlinson, T. M. (1997). Can the jury disregard that information? The use of suspicion to reduce the prejudicial effects of pretrial publicity and inadmissible testimony. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1215–1226.
Fischhoff, B. (1977). Perceived informativeness of facts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 3, 349–358.
Hafstad, S. G., Memon, A., & Logie, R. (2004). Post-identification feedback, confidence and recollections of witnessing conditions in child witnesses. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18, 901–912.
McAllister, H. A., Dale, R. H. L., Bregman, N. J., McCabe, A., & Cotton, C. R. (1993a). When eyewitnesses are also earwitnesses: Effects on visual and voice identifications. Basic and Applied Social Psychology , 14, 161–170.
McQuiston-Surrett, D. E., Malpass, R. S., & Tredoux, C. G. (2006). Sequential vs. simultaneous lineups: A review of methods, data, and theory. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 12(2), 137–169.
Neil [K1]v. Biggers, 409, US 188 (1972).
Neuschatz, J. S., & Cutler, B. L. (in press). Eyewitness identification. In H. L. Roediger (Ed.), Learning and memory: A comprehensive reference. Erlbaum.
Neuschatz, J. S., Preston, E. L., Burkett, A. D., Toglia, M. P., Lampinen, J. M., Neuschatz, J. S., et al. (2005). The effects of post-identification feedback and age on retrospective eyewitness memory. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 435–453.
Neuschatz, J. S., Lawson, D. S., Fairless, A. H., Powers, R. A., Neuschatz, J. S., Goodsell, C. A., et al. (2007). The mitigating effects of suspicion on post-identification feedback and an retrospective eyewitness memory. Law and Human Behavior, 31, 231–247.
Pavio, A. (1971). Imagery and verbal processes. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Pavio, A. (1975). Coding distinctions and repetition effects in memory. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 9, pp. 179–214). New York: Academic Press.
Skagerberg, E. M. (2007). Co-witness feedback in lineups. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 489–498.
Wells, G. L., & Bradfield, A. L. (1998). “Good, you identified the suspect:” Feedback to eyewitnesses distorts their reports of the witnessing experience. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 360–376.
Wells, G. L., & Olson, E. A. (2003). Eyewitness testimony. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 277–295.
Wells, G. L., Olson, E. A., & Charman, S. D. (2003). Distorted retrospective eyewitness reports as functions of feedback and delay. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 9, 42–52.
Wells, G. L., Small, M., Penrod, S. J., Malpass, R. S., Fulero, S. M., & Brimacombe, C. A. E. (1998). Eyewitness identification procedures: Recommendations for lineups and photospreads. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 603–647.
Yarmey, A. D. (2007). The psychology of speaker identification and earwitness testimony. In R. C. L. Lindsay, D. F. Ross, D. J. Read, & M. P. Toglia (Eds.), The handbook of eyewitness psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 101–136). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Yarmey, D. A. (1995). Earwitness speaker identification. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 4, 792–816.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
About this article
Cite this article
Quinlivan, D.S., Neuschatz, J.S., Jimenez, A. et al. Do Prophylactics Prevent Inflation? Post-identification Feedback and the Effectiveness of Procedures to Protect Against Confidence-inflation in Earwitnesses . Law Hum Behav 33, 111–121 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-008-9132-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-008-9132-1