Renan Benigno Saraiva, Inger van Boeijen, Lorraine Hope, Robert Horselenberg, Melanie Sauerland, Peter J. van Koppen
{"title":"Eyewitness metamemory predicts identification performance in biased and unbiased line-ups","authors":"Renan Benigno Saraiva, Inger van Boeijen, Lorraine Hope, Robert Horselenberg, Melanie Sauerland, Peter J. van Koppen","doi":"10.1111/lcrp.12166","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Purpose</h3>\n \n <p>Distinguishing accurate from inaccurate identifications is a challenging issue in the criminal justice system, especially for biased police line-ups. That is because biased line-ups undermine the diagnostic value of accuracy post-dictors such as confidence and decision time. Here, we aimed to test general and eyewitness-specific self-ratings of memory capacity as potential estimators of identification performance that are unaffected by line-up bias.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Participants (<i>N</i> = 744) completed a metamemory assessment consisting of the Multifactorial Metamemory Questionnaire and the Eyewitness Metamemory Scale and took part in a standard eyewitness paradigm. Following the presentation of a mock-crime video, they viewed either biased or unbiased line-ups.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Self-ratings of discontentment with eyewitness memory ability were indicative of identification accuracy for both biased and unbiased line-ups. Participants who scored low on eyewitness metamemory factors also displayed a stronger confidence–accuracy calibration than those who scored high.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>These results suggest a promising role for self-ratings of memory capacity in the evaluation of eyewitness identifications, while also advancing theory on self-assessments for different memory systems.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":18022,"journal":{"name":"Legal and Criminological Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2020-02-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/lcrp.12166","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Legal and Criminological Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/lcrp.12166","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3
Abstract
Purpose
Distinguishing accurate from inaccurate identifications is a challenging issue in the criminal justice system, especially for biased police line-ups. That is because biased line-ups undermine the diagnostic value of accuracy post-dictors such as confidence and decision time. Here, we aimed to test general and eyewitness-specific self-ratings of memory capacity as potential estimators of identification performance that are unaffected by line-up bias.
Methods
Participants (N = 744) completed a metamemory assessment consisting of the Multifactorial Metamemory Questionnaire and the Eyewitness Metamemory Scale and took part in a standard eyewitness paradigm. Following the presentation of a mock-crime video, they viewed either biased or unbiased line-ups.
Results
Self-ratings of discontentment with eyewitness memory ability were indicative of identification accuracy for both biased and unbiased line-ups. Participants who scored low on eyewitness metamemory factors also displayed a stronger confidence–accuracy calibration than those who scored high.
Conclusions
These results suggest a promising role for self-ratings of memory capacity in the evaluation of eyewitness identifications, while also advancing theory on self-assessments for different memory systems.
期刊介绍：
Legal and Criminological Psychology publishes original papers in all areas of psychology and law: - victimology - policing and crime detection - crime prevention - management of offenders - mental health and the law - public attitudes to law - role of the expert witness - impact of law on behaviour - interviewing and eyewitness testimony - jury decision making - deception The journal publishes papers which advance professional and scientific knowledge defined broadly as the application of psychology to law and interdisciplinary enquiry in legal and psychological fields.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
