Further Readings
Kassin, S. M., & Sukel, H. (1997). Coerced confessions and
the jury: An experimental test of the “harmless error”
rule. Law and Human Behavior, 21,27–46.
Lassiter, G. D., Geers, A. L., Handley, I. M., Weiland, P. E.,
& Munhall, P. J. (2002). Videotaped confessions and
interrogations: A change in camera perspective alters
verdicts in simulated trials. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 87,867–874.CONFIDENCE INIDENTIFICATIONS
The confidence that eyewitnesses express in their deci-
sion at an identification test or lineup has long been rec-
ognized within the criminal justice system as an
indicator of the likely reliability or accuracy of the wit-
ness. In contrast, psychology researchers have down-
played the diagnostic value of eyewitness identification
confidence. Although only a relatively small proportion
of the variance in identification accuracy is associated
with variance in confidence, recent research using what
is known as a confidence-accuracy (CA) calibration
procedure suggests that confidence—measured imme-
diately after the identification decision—can provide a
useful (but not infallible) pointer for crime investigators
to the likely accuracy of positive but not negative (i.e.,
lineup rejections) lineup decisions. This conclusion
definitely does not apply, however, to confidence judg-
ments expressed in the courtroom as, by this time, there
has been an opportunity for postidentification influ-
ences (such as feedback from lineup administrators or
other witnesses) to shape any subsequent confidence
judgments. Nor is the conclusion applicable to judg-
ments expressed by witnesses prior to having viewed a
lineup. A major challenge for future research in this
area will be to define the boundary conditions for
obtaining robust CA calibration, which, in turn, will
enhance the capacity to diagnose the likely accuracy of
identification decisions.
Eyewitnesses will often provide some sort of
expression of confidence in their memory when they
examine a police lineup or photo spread or when they
testify in court about the identity of the offender. Their
degree of confidence is known to exert a strong influ-
ence on assessments made by the police, lawyers, and
jurors about the likely reliability of their testimony. Yet
it is known that eyewitness confidence is sometimes an
extremely misleading cue to the likely accuracy of anidentification. The following sections examine when
identification confidence is informative about the
offender’s identity and when it is likely to mislead.
Eyewitness confidence has been of major interest
because confidence is an easily obtainable index that
could potentially provide a guide for the criminal
justice sector as to the likely reliability of an eyewit-
ness identification response. Given the crucial role
that identifications can play in some investigations
and trials, together with the overwhelming evidence
of eyewitness fallibility provided by DNA exonera-
tion cases and experimental simulations of identifi-
cation tests, knowing how much weight should be
attached to witnesses’ confidence estimates is an
important forensic issue.
Even prior to attending an identification test, wit-
nesses may express a particular degree of confidence
in their capacity to identify the offender, with the con-
fident witness likely to impress police investigators.
These assessments are likely to be influenced by a
variety of factors such as witnesses’ evaluations of the
strength of the memorial image for the offender, their
recollections of the quality of view they had of the
offender at the time of the crime, their perceptions of
how good a recall they displayed when interviewed by
the police, and so on. To date, there is no evidence to
indicate that such preidentification test confidence
assessments should be considered as a guide to the
likely accuracy of an identification.Factors for and Against a
Confidence-Accuracy Relationship
There is now a sizable literature on the relationship
between confidence, when expressed after an identifi-
cation decision, and identification accuracy. Researchers
have mounted compelling arguments both for and
against expecting a strong relationship between identi-
fication confidence and accuracy. For example, in recog-
nitionmemory theories and research, the strong link
between memory signal strength and recognition
accuracy and confidence provides firm grounds for
expecting a meaningful CA relationship. Furthermore,
witnesses with very strong memories of the offender
are likely to make a rapid identification, with the appar-
ent ease or speed of the identification providing a
potentially reliable cue to confidence. Other support
comes from research on psychophysical discrimina-
tion, indicating that confidence may well regulate,
rather than be a result of, the decision process.138 ———Confidence in IdentificationsC-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:41 PM Page 138