Can Eyewitnesses Correct for External Influences on Their Lineup Identifications? The Actual/Counterfactual Assessment Paradigm

Autor/inn/en	Charman, Steve D.; Wells, Gary L.
Titel	Can Eyewitnesses Correct for External Influences on Their Lineup Identifications? The Actual/Counterfactual Assessment Paradigm
Quelle	In: Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 14 (2008) 1, S.5-20 (16 Seiten) PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	1076-898X
DOI	10.1037/1076-898X.14.1.5
Schlagwörter	Models; Feedback (Response); Experiments; Influences; Recognition (Psychology); Context Effect; Cognitive Processes; Theories; Identification + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Analogiemodell; Erprobung; Influence; Einfluss; Einflussfaktor; Recognition; Wiedererkennen; Cognitive process; Kognitiver Prozess; Theory; Theorie; Identifikation; Identifizierung
Abstract	Real-world eyewitnesses are often asked whether their lineup responses were affected by various external influences, but it is unknown whether they can accurately answer these types of questions. The witness-report-of-influence mental-correction model is proposed to explain witnesses' reports of influence. Two experiments used a new paradigm (the actual/counterfactual paradigm) to examine eyewitnesses' abilities to report accurately on the influence of lineup manipulations. Eyewitnesses were administered either confirming feedback or no feedback (Experiment 1, n = 103), or a cautionary instruction or no cautionary instruction (Experiment 2, n = 114). Eyewitnesses then gave actual responses (retrospective confidence, view, and attention measures in Experiment 1; identification decision in Experiment 2) as well as counterfactual responses stating how they would have responded in the alternative condition. Results across both studies showed an asymmetric estimation of influence pattern: Eyewitnesses who received an influencing manipulation estimated significantly less of a change in their responses than eyewitnesses who did not receive an influencing manipulation. A 48-hr delay between actual and counterfactual responses did not moderate any effects. Results are explained by witnesses' implicit theories of influence. (Contains 4 tables and 4 figures.) (Author).
Anmerkungen	American Psychological Association. Journals Department, 750 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20002-4242. Tel: 800-374-2721; Tel: 202-336-5510; Fax: 202-336-5502; e-mail: order@apa.org; Web site: http://www.apa.org/publications
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2017/4/10