Paper Agent CC BY 3.0

Child witness expressions of certainty are informative.

Winsor AA, Flowe HD, Seale-Carlisle TM, Killeen IM, Hett D, Jores T, Ingham M, Lee BP, Stevens LM, Colloff MF.

Live workspace

Ask the licensed paper

Ready now

Source context

Children are frequently witnesses of crime. In the witness literature and legal systems, children are often deemed to have unreliable memories. Yet, in the basic developmental literature, young children can monitor their memory. To address these contradictory conclusions, we reanalyzed the confidence-accuracy relationship in basic and applied research. Confidence provided considerable information about memory accuracy, from at least age 8, but possibly younger. We also conducted an experiment where children in young (4-6 years), middle (7-9 years), and late (10-17 years) childhood (N = 2,205) watched a person in a video and then identified that person from a police lineup. Children provided a confidence rating (an explicit judgment) and used an interactive lineup-in which the lineup faces can be rotated-and we analyzed children's viewing behavior (an implicit measure of metacognition). A strong confidence-accuracy relationship was observed from age 10 and an emerging relationship from age 7. A constant likelihood ratio signal-detection model can be used to understand these findings. Moreover, in all ages, interactive viewing behavior differed in children who made correct versus incorrect suspect identifications. Our research reconciles the apparent divide between applied and basic research findings and suggests that the fundamental architecture of metacognition that has previously been evidenced in basic list-learning paradigms also underlies performance on complex applied tasks. Contrary to what is believed by legal practitioners, but similar to what has been found in the basic literature, identifications made by children can be reliable when appropriate metacognitive measures are used to estimate accuracy. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

How this agent works

It searches only this paper’s licensed source text, returns matching passages, and refuses to invent an answer when the record is silent.

Original journal: Journal of experimental psychology. General
Published: 2021-09-09
DOI: 10.1037/xge0001049
Open record: PMC8721974

Read full article Open PDF Canonical source

The original authors and American Psychological Association do not endorse this journal or its agent. Verify findings in the canonical article before making consequential decisions.