increase over time. Unfortunately, profound distor-
tions in witnesses’ memories of how confident they
were at the time of the identification are easy to create
with postidentification feedback. Witnesses who hear
that their identification was correct report remember-
ing with greater certainty at the time of the identifica-
tion compared with witnesses who heard nothing
about their accuracy. Because this effect occurs for
eyewitnesses who have made false identifications, the
manipulation produces a set of highly confident, but
wrong, eyewitnesses. As with the other system vari-
ables described above, this one has an easy solution.
If confidence reports are collected immediately after
an identification is made, eyewitnesses’ confidence
reports will not be vulnerable to influence by the
photospread administrator.Implications of
Confidence Malleability
As noted above, there is a nontrivial, positive relation-
ship between confidence and accuracy under certain
circumstances. However, because confidence is mal-
leable, the significant relationship between the two
variables can easily be compromised or even elimi-
nated. One way in which the confidence-accuracy cor-
relation is eliminated is by suggesting to witnesses
that they prepare for cross-examination. In such a sit-
uation, witnesses who have made inaccurate identifi-
cations often inflate their confidence to the point
where their confidence is indistinguishable from that
of accurate witnesses. Postidentification feedback
has a similarly devastating effect on the confidence-
accuracy correlation: Witnesses who hear that their
identification was correct report equivalent levels of
confidence, regardless of whether their actual identifi-
cation was accurate or inaccurate.
The implications of confidence inflation are pro-
found because a witness’s confidence in the accuracy
of his or her identification carries enormous weight in
judgments of accuracy, often trumping other variables.
In one set of studies, mock jurors were provided with
information about 10 variables, all of which influence
identification accuracy (e.g., the culprit’s disguise).
None of the 10 variables influenced mock jurors’
assessments except confidence. In another experiment,
jurors who participated disregarded the quality of a
witness’s view, evaluating him or her positively as long
as confidence was high. This reliance on confidence
is unproblematic except that eyewitnesses routinelyproduce highly confident reports about identifications
that are incorrect. Ample real-world evidence suggests
that this is a significant problem. Many individuals
exonerated by DNA evidence were convicted on the
basis of confident eyewitness identifications.Future Research
on Confidence Malleability
Even though confidence malleability is a well-studied
phenomenon, there are many unanswered questions.
For example, researchers do not yet know for how
long confidence is malleable. Some research suggests
that postidentification feedback still influences ret-
rospective certainty reports even when it is given
48 hours after an event is witnessed. These results are
provocative—suggesting that confidence may be mal-
leable for extended periods of time. However, because
few studies include manipulations of time, the extent
to which confidence is malleable is not well under-
stood. The reason for the susceptibility of confidence
to external influences is also not well understood. One
contributing factor may be that confidence reports are
derived from many sources. One other factor is
undoubtedly the extent to which the stimulus matches
the witness’s memory (i.e., ecphoric similarity).
Another factor is the desire of witnesses to determine
whether their judgment is correct (i.e., the desire for
informational influence). In at least one study, the ten-
dency to conform eyewitness decisions to others was
highest when the witnessing conditions made identifi-
cation difficult (i.e., the stimulus was in view for a
very short time) and the task was important.Remedies for Confidence Malleability
The most obvious remedy for confidence inflation is
to record witnesses’ reports immediately after an iden-
tification is made or a crime is reported. This solution
is appealing for three reasons. First, providing a con-
fidence report may in fact inoculate witnesses against
future inflations. In one study, witnesses who pro-
vided a private retrospective confidence report were
less affected by postidentification feedback than were
witnesses who did not. Second, records of confidence
reports would allow defense attorneys to challenge
subsequent inflation through cross-examination
at trial. This is likely to be difficult, as one study
demonstrated that mock jurors are resistant to
attempts to undermine a witness’s confidence report144 ———Confidence in Identifications, MalleabilityC-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:41 PM Page 144