Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Memory and Law$
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content.

Lynn Nadel and Walter P. Sinnott-Armstrong

Print publication date: 2012

Print ISBN-13: 9780199920754

Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: January 2013

DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199920754.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2017. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy).date: 30 April 2017

The Curious Complexity between Confidence and Accuracy in Reports from Memory

The Curious Complexity between Confidence and Accuracy in Reports from Memory

Chapter:
(p.84) 4 The Curious Complexity between Confidence and Accuracy in Reports from Memory
Source:
Memory and Law
Author(s):

Henry L. Roediger III

John H. Wixted

K. Andrew Desoto

Publisher:
Oxford University Press
DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199920754.003.0004

The reliability of confident eyewitness evidence is critical for the legal system, but conflicting evidence exists on the relation of confidence and accuracy in reports from memory. This chapter reviews four methods (and a fifth hybrid method) used to address this issue, and the chapter surveys evidence obtained by each method. Both positive correlations and zero correlations can be obtained between confidence and accuracy; in fact, a negative correlation between confidence and accuracy is possible in certain circumstances (when people are asked to judge events similar to the one originally viewed). Despite this wide range of possible outcomes, it is also true that confidence and accuracy are often positively related in forensically relevant studies. However, even under those conditions, high-confidence errors can and do occur. Like other types of evidence, confidence is a useful but imperfect indicator of truth. We recommend that eyewitness testimony be considered only one (fallible) indicant of guilt. The problem of high confidence errors or false memories (demonstrated in nearly all research on the topic) makes the sole use of eyewitness testimony in adjudicating guilt too risky.

Keywords:   confidence and accuracy, eyewitness memory, false memories, high confidence errors, correlation, calibration

Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.

Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.

If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs , and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us .