Running head: OBJECTIVITY AND CONFIDENCE IN EYEWITNESS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Objectivity and Level of Confidence

in Eyewitness Testimony Judgments

Erin McCabe

St. Bonaventure University

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine what effect objectivity and an individual’s confidence level have on their performance as an eyewitness.  A perceived objectivity scale and a confidence level scale were used; participants then watched a video tape of a purse snatching and were the asked to pick out the criminal.  The study is a 2 (level of confidence) x 2 (level of objectivity) factorial design.  Results of the ANOVA confirmed my hypotheses that highly objective individuals were better eyewitness judges as were those high in confidence.  A significant interaction indicated that eyewitness accuracy varied with the level of objectivity and level of confidence such that highly confident and objective subjects made the most accurate identifications.  Therefore the ideal witness that an attorney would want for their case would be an objective, confident one.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Objectivity and Level of Confidence in Eyewitness Testimony Judgments

            In my Forensic Psychology course, we examined the many aspects that make up this intriguing field.  One of these topics that I particularly enjoyed was learning about eyewitness testimony. I became most curious about what personality variables predict testimony accuracy. The eyewitness is clearly one of the most, if not the most, important players in the criminal justice system.  Without eyewitness testimony, the great majority of criminals would evade prosecution.  While researching this topic I came across two different factors that help to make a good eyewitness objectivity and confidence level. 

            Mary Connell’s 2002 study entitled, The Use of Eyewitness Research in the Courts, sites a previous study done by Wells (1998) who concluded that there is a positive correlation between accuracy of identification and confidence expressed by the eyewitness.  He also found that post verdict interviews of jurors revealed that confidence expressed by an eyewitness regarding identification was the most powerful single determinate of whether jurors would believe the testimony.  Wells was also responsible for making four recommendations regarding rules for lineup and photo array procedures, one of them being obtaining confidence statements. 

            Geiselman, Schroppel, Tubridy, Konishi, and Rodriguez (2000), conducted a study on objectivity and eyewitness performance.  They defined people who are objective are high self-monitors.  High self-monitors are persons who are reliably monitoring people around them.  They predicted that these people would make the best eyewitness because of their monitoring abilities.  One interesting find that came from this study and influenced myself to do this study was that participants who considered themselves to be most objective were more likely to offer higher confidence ratings in their identification decisions regardless of the accuracy of their decisions. 

            I used the previous studies to predict my study.  I hypothesized that people who consider themselves to be objective and have a high confidence level would make the best eyewitnesses.  I also predict an interaction.  An interaction means that the level of eyewitness testimony accuracy depends on high levels of objectivity and confidence such that confidence varies with objectivity such that the highly objective and confident participant makes the best eyewitness.  

Methods

Participants

            Sixty undergraduate students (30 women and 30 men) from St. Bonaventure University participated in this study.

Materials

            A perceived objectivity scale was used to determine an individual’s objectivity rating.  They were also given a confidence rating scale where they responded to different statements to determine how confident they were in themselves. The participants were then told that they were going to watch videotape and then be asked questions after the viewing.  Participants were shown a 3-minute color video on a 25-inch television screen approximately 5 feet from where the participants were seated.  The video depicts a purse snatching in which a young male approaches a sign outside a campus eatery and remains stationary, with a three quarters view to the camera for 5 seconds.  The man then reverses his path and enters an enclosed walkway out of view.  Five seconds later, he exits the enclosed walkway, running with a woman’s purse in his hand.  A lone female then exists the enclosed walkway running, screaming ‘Hey, he stole my purse.’

            Immediately following the viewing of the video, each participant was given a response form with standard procedure statements such as ‘the photograph may or may not contain a picture of the person who committed the crime’ as well as ‘keep in mind that hair styles, beards, and moustaches may be easily changed.  They were presented with a photo array of possible suspects and had to check underneath the photograph whether the individual was ‘present’ or ‘not present.’ Another space was provided for the participants to indicate their confidence, on a 5-point scale, that their identification responses were correct, regardless of whether they selected a photograph.  The dependent variable was the number of correctly identified criminals out of 10.

Results

            The results found are consistent with previous research done in this field.  The results were divided into four categories.  They are as follows: high confidence/high objectivity, high confidence/low objectivity, low confidence/high objectivity, and low confidence/low objectivity.  For example, if a participant rated their objectivity a 5 and their confidence level a 5, they would be classified in the high confidence/high objectivity category having identified correctly all or most of the criminals. 

            A between-subjects ANOVA was used to analyze the scores.  There was a main effect for objectivity: F(1,56) = 38.748, p < 0.05.  There was also a main effect for confidence: F(1,56) = 24.518, p < 0.05.  There was also an interaction between the two variables, objectivity and confidence: F(1,56) = 12.509, p,0.05.  Results of the ANOVA confirmed my hypotheses that highly objective individuals were better eyewitness judges as were those high in confidence.  A significant interaction indicated that eyewitness accuracy varied with the level of objectivity and level of confidence such that highly confident and objective subjects made the most accurate identifications.  Therefore the ideal witness that an attorney would want for their case would be an objective, confident one.  See Table 1 and Figure 1.

 

Discussion

            The results of this experiment show that an individual with high objectivity and a high level of confidence would make the best eyewitness.  I say best eyewitness meaning that they would be able to correctly identify a criminal as opposed to someone who had low objectivity and a low level of confidence. 

            When thinking about the results of this experiment I first off predicted what I found.  However, I also had other feelings about the potential outcome of my study.  When you think about someone with high confidence, you often associate that with high self-esteem and a somewhat narcissistic attitude.  Someone like that may think too highly of themselves and just assume that they are right because of a cocky attitude.  This thinking almost influenced me to change the predictions of my study, but previous research helped me to keep my predictions they way they were and I was able to see them come out the original way I planned.

            Past research has shown that two variables are important in making the perfect eyewitness, objectivity and confidence.  It was found in my study that a highly objective person makes a better eyewitness than one who has low objectivity.  It was also found that a person with high confidence would make a better eyewitness that someone with a low confidence level.  Based on these results I was able to confirm my hypothesis that an individual that is highly objective and has a high level of confidence would make a better, more accurate eyewitness than someone who has low levels of objectivity and confidence.  

 

 

 

References

Geiselman, R. E., Schroppel, T., Tubridy, A., Konishi, T., & Rodriguez, V. (2001)

            Objectivity Bias in Eyewitness Performance.  Applied Cognitive Psychology.,

            14, 323-332.

Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (5th ed). (2001).

            Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

Wells, G.  L. (1993).  What do we know about eyewitness identification? American

            Psychologist., 48, 553-571.

Wells, G. L., Small, M., Penrod, S., Malpass, R. S., Fulero, S. M., & Brimacomb, C.A.E.

            (1998). Eyewitness identification procedures: Recommendations for lineups and

            Photo-spreads. Law and Human Behavior, (22) 6, 603-647.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 1: Mean Scores of Objectivity and Confidence Levels

 

                                                          High con                                     Low Confidence

High Objectivity

              10

                   4

Low Objectivity

               3

                   2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure Caption

Figure 1: Affect of Objectivity and Confidence on Eyewitness Testimony