Written vs. spoken eyewitness accounts: does modality of testing matter?

The aim of the current study was to test whether the modality of testing (written vs. spoken) matters when obtaining eyewitness statements. Writing puts higher demands on working memory than speaking because writing is slower, less practiced, and associated with the activation of graphemic representations for spelling words (Kellogg, 2007). Therefore, we hypothesized that witnesses' spoken reports should elicit more details than written ones. Participants (N=192) watched a staged crime video and then gave a spoken or written description of the course of action and the perpetrator. As expected, spoken crime and perpetrator descriptions contained more details than written ones, although there was no difference in accuracy. However, the most critical (central) crime and perpetrator information was both more extensive and more accurate when witnesses gave spoken descriptions. In addition to cognitive factors, social factors are considered which may drive the effect. Copyright (C) 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd

Assessing nonchoosers' eyewitness identification accuracy from photographic showups by using confidence and response times

While recent research has shown that the accuracy of positive identification decisions can be assessed via confidence and decision times, gauging lineup rejections has been less successful. The current study focused on 2 different aspects which are inherent in lineup rejections. First, we hypothesized that decision times and confidence ratings should be postdictive of identification rejections if they refer to a single lineup member only. Second, we hypothesized that dividing nonchoosers according to the reasons they provided for their decisions can serve as a useful postdictor for nonchoosers' accuracy. To test these assumptions, we used (1) 1-person lineups (showups) in order to obtain confidence and response time measures referring to a single lineup member, and (2) asked nonchoosers about their reasons for making a rejection. Three hundred and eighty-four participants were asked to identify 2 different persons after watching 1 of 2 stimulus films. The results supported our hypotheses. Nonchoosers' postdecision confidence ratings were well-calibrated. Likewise, we successfully established optimum time and confidence boundaries for nonchoosers. Finally, combinations of postdictors increased the number of accurate classifications compared with individual postdictors

Discriminating adults' genuine, imagined, and deceptive accounts of positive and negative childhood events

17 page(s