Elevated stress impairs the accuracy of eyewitness memory but not the confidence-accuracy relationship.

Although numerous studies have identified factors that affect eyewitness identification accuracy, recent studies report that many of these factors do not affect the accuracy of high-confidence identifications. This is critical because legal cases are more likely to be prosecuted if they involve high-confidence eyewitnesses. Using a confidence-accuracy characteristic (CAC) analysis, we explored whether stress affects the accuracy of high-confidence identifications. In two experiments, people viewed faces followed by an old/new recognition-memory test and provided confidence ratings. Stress was manipulated by pairing a low- or high-valence image with each studied face. Identification accuracy was higher in the low- than high-stress condition, yet the proportion correct for high-confidence positive identifications was similar in the two stress conditions. Elevated stress impairs eyewitness identification accuracy overall. However, the results of this study suggest that confidence is a better predictor of recognition-memory accuracy than is stress even though confidence alone is still an imperfect predictor. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Postdictive confidence (but not predictive confidence) predicts eyewitness memory accuracy.

If testing conditions are uncontaminated, confidence at test reliably predicts eyewitness memory accuracy. Unfortunately, information about eyewitness postdictive confidence (at the time of the identification test) is frequently unavailable or not well documented. In cases where postdictive confidence is unavailable, a useful indicator of eyewitness accuracy might be an eyewitness's predictive confidence made shortly after the event. How do the accuracy of predictive and postdictive confidence judgments compare; and do variables reported to affect memory (e.g. exposure duration, face race) affect the reliability of the confidence-accuracy relationship for predictive and postdictive judgments? In two experiments, we tested the accuracy of memory predictions (immediate and delayed judgments of learning [JOLs]) and postdictions (confidence) for same- and cross-race faces. Although delayed high JOLs were indicative of higher recognition memory accuracy than delayed low JOLs for both same- and cross-race faces, the accuracy of even high predictive JOLs was objectively low. Postdictive confidence was a far stronger indicator of memory accuracy than predictive JOLs; high postdictive confidence was indicative of high accuracy; and this was true for both same- and cross-race recognition memory.