Law and Human Behavior

, Volume 4, Issue 4, pp 243–260 | Cite as

Eyewitness accuracy and confidence

Can we infer anything about their relationship?
  • Kenneth A. Deffenbacher


In deciding the trustworthiness of eyewitness testimony, the U.S. judiciary employs as one of five criteria the witness' level of confidence demonstrated at the confrontation. A very recent laboratory study has shown that juror perceptions of witness confidence account for 50% of the variance in juror judgments as to witness accuracy. This strong faith in the adequacy of certainty as a predictor of accuracy is not at all supported by the present review of 43 separate assessments of the accuracy/confidence relation in eye- and earwitnesses. Statistical support is provided for the notion that the predictability of accuracy from overtly expressed confidence varies directly with the degree of optimality of information-processing conditions during encoding of the witnessed event, memory storage, and testing of the witness' memory. Low optimal conditions, those mitigating against the likelihood of highly reliable testimony, typically result in a zero correlation of confidence and accuracy. Using the arbitrary criterion of 70% or greater accuracy to define high optimal conditions, seven forensically relevant laboratory studies are identified, with six of them exhibiting significant positive correlations of confidence and accuracy. It is concluded, however, that no really clear criteria currently exist for distinguishing post hoc high from low optimal witnessing conditions in any particular real-life situation. Hence the judiciary should cease their reliance on witness confidence as an index of witness accuracy.


Laboratory Study Significant Positive Correlation Memory Storage Clear Criterion Recent Laboratory 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Reference Notes

  1. 1.
    Hastie, R., Loftus, E.F., Penrod, S., & Winkler, J.D.The reliability of eyewitness testimony: Review of the psychological literature. Unpublished manuscript, Harvard University, 1979.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hall, D.F., & Ostrom, T.M.Accuracy of eyewitness identification after biasing or unbiased instructions. Unpublished manuscript, Ohio State University, 1975.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hosch, H.M., & Cooper, D.S.Personalism of a crime and self-monitoring as determinants of eyewitness accuracy. Unpublished manuscript, University of Texas at El Paso, 1980.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Malpass, R.S., & Devine, P.G.Eyewitness identification: Lineup instructions and the absence of the offender. Unpublished manuscript, State University of New York, College at Plattsburgh, 1979.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Yarmey, A.D.Recognition memory for male and female faces. Paper presented at annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Toronto, Ontario, 1978.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brigham, J.C., Snyder, L.D., Spaulding, K., & Maass, A.The accuracy of eyewitness identification in a field setting. Unpublished manuscript, Florida State University, 1980.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Malpass, R.S., & Devine, P.G.Guided memory in eyewitness identification. Unpublished manuscript, State University of New York, College at Plattsburgh, 1980.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sheperd, J.W., Davies, G.M., & Ellis, H.D.Identification after delay. Final grant report by the Department of Psychology, University of Aberdeen, to the Home Office Research Unit, 1980.Google Scholar


  1. 9.
    Brown, E.L., Deffenbacher, K.A., & Sturgill, W. Memory for faces and the circumstances of encounter.Journal of Applied Psychology, 1977,62, 311–318.Google Scholar
  2. 10.
    Brown, R., & McNeill, D. The “tip of the tongue” phenomenon.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1966,5, 325–337.Google Scholar
  3. 11.
    Buckhout, R., Alper, A., Chern, S., Silverberg, G., & Slomovits, M. Determinants of eyewitness performance on a lineup.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 1974,4, 191–192.Google Scholar
  4. 12.
    Buckhout, R., Figueroa, D., & Hoff, E. Eyewitness identification: Effects of suggestion and bias in identification from photographs.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 1975,6, 71–74.Google Scholar
  5. 13.
    Clifford, B.R. A critique of eyewitness research. In M.M. Gruneberg, P.E. Morris, & R.N. Sykes (Eds.),Practical aspects of memory. London: Academic Press, 1978.Google Scholar
  6. 14.
    Clifford, B.R., & Scott, J. Individual and situational factors in eyewitness testimony.Journal of Applied Psychology, 1978,63, 352–359.Google Scholar
  7. 15.
    Dallenbach, K.M. The relation of memory error to time-interval.Psychological Review, 1913,20, 323–337.Google Scholar
  8. 16.
    Davies, G.M., Ellis, H.D., & Sheperd, J.W. Face recognition accuracy as a function of mode of representation.Journal of Applied Psychology 1978,63, 180–187.Google Scholar
  9. 17.
    Davies, G.M., Sheperd, J.W., & Ellis, H.D. Remembering faces: Acknowledging our limitations.Journal of the Forensic Science Society, 1978,18, 19–24.Google Scholar
  10. 18.
    Deffenbacher, K.A., Brown, E.L., & Sturgill, W. Some predictors of eyewitness memory accuracy. In M.M. Gruneberg, P.E. Morris, & R.N. Sykes (Eds.),Practical aspects of memory. London: Academic Press, 1978.Google Scholar
  11. 19.
    Deffenbacher, K.A., Leu, J.R., & Brown, E.L. Memory for faces: Testing method, encoding strategy, and confidence.American Journal of Psychology, 1980, in press.Google Scholar
  12. 20.
    Egan, D., Pittner, M., & Goldstein, A.G. Eyewitness identification: Photographs vs. live models.Law and Human Behavior, 1977,1, 199–206.Google Scholar
  13. 21.
    Gardner, D.S. The perception and memory of witnesses.Cornell Law Quarterly, 1933,18, 391–409.Google Scholar
  14. 22.
    Goldstein, A.G. The fallibility of the eyewitness: Psychological evidence. In B. Sales (Ed.),Psychology in the legal process. New York: Spectrum, 1977.Google Scholar
  15. 23.
    Gruneberg, M.M., & Sykes, R.N. Knowledge and retention: The feeling of knowing and reminiscence. In M.M. Gruneberg, P.E. Morris, & R.N. Sykes (Eds.),Practical aspects of memory. London: Academic Press, 1978.Google Scholar
  16. 24.
    Hart, J.T. Memory and the feeling of knowing experience.Journal of Educational Psychology, 1965,56, 208–216.Google Scholar
  17. 25.
    Hilgendorf, E.L., & Irving, B.L. False positive identification.Medical Science Law, 1978,18, 255–262.Google Scholar
  18. 26.
    Kozlowski, L.T., & Bryant, K.J. Sense of direction, spatial orientation and cognitive maps.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1977,3, 590–598.Google Scholar
  19. 27.
    Kreutzer, M.A., Leonard, S.C., & Flavell, J.H. An interview study of children's knowledge about memory.Monographys of the Society for Research in Child Development, 1975,40 (1, Serial No. 159).Google Scholar
  20. 28.
    Leippe, M.R., Wells, G.L., & Ostrom, T.M. Crime seriousness as a determinant of accuracy in eyewitness identification.Journal of Applied Psychology, 1978,63, 345–351.Google Scholar
  21. 29.
    Levine, F.J., & Tapp, J.L. The psychology of criminal identification: The gap from Wade to Kirby.University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 1973,121, 1079–1131.Google Scholar
  22. 30.
    Lindsay, R.C.L., Wells, G.L., & Rumpel, C.M. Can people detect eyewitness identification accuracy within and across situations?Journal of Applied Psychology, 1981,66, 79–89.Google Scholar
  23. 31.
    Lipton, J.P. On the psychology of eyewitness testimony.Journal of Applied Psychology, 1977,62, 90–95.Google Scholar
  24. 32.
    Loftus, E.F.Eyewitness testimony. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1979.Google Scholar
  25. 33.
    Loftus, E.F., Miller, D.G., & Burns, H.J. Semantic integration of verbal information into a visual memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 1978,4, 19–31.Google Scholar
  26. 34.
    Murdock, B.B., Jr.Human memory: Theory and data. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum, 1974.Neil vs. Biggers. 409 U.S. 188 (1972).Google Scholar
  27. 35.
    Powers, P.A., Andriks, J.L., & Loftus, E.F. Eyewitness accounts of females and males.Journal of Applied Psychology, 1979,64, 339–347.Google Scholar
  28. 36.
    Saslove, H., & Yarmey, A.D. Long-term auditory memory: Speaker identification.Journal of Applied Psychology, 1980,65, 111–116.Google Scholar
  29. 37.
    Schmeck, R.R., Ribich, F., & Ramanaiah, N. Development of a self-report inventory for assessing individual differences in learning processes.Applied Psychological Measurement, 1977,1, 413–431.Google Scholar
  30. 38.
    Wells, G.L., Lindsay, R.C.L., & Ferguson, T.J. Accuracy, confidence, and juror perceptions in eyewitness identification.Journal of Applied Psychology, 1979,64, 440–448.Google Scholar
  31. 39.
    Whipple, G.M. The observer as reporter: A survey of the “Psychology of Testimony.”Psychological Bulletin, 1909,6, 153–170.Google Scholar
  32. 40.
    Yarmey, A.D. Through the looking glass: Sex differences in memory for self-facial poses.Journal of Research in Personality, 1979a,13, 450–459.Google Scholar
  33. 41.
    Yarmey, A.D.The psychology of eyewitness testimony. New York: The Free Press, 1979b.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1980

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kenneth A. Deffenbacher
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of Nebraska at OmahaOmahaUSA

Personalised recommendations