Literature DB >> 27832376

On the importance of considering heterogeneity in witnesses' competence levels when reconstructing crimes from multiple witness testimonies.

Berenike Waubert de Puiseau1, Sven Greving2, André Aßfalg3, Jochen Musch4.   

Abstract

Aggregating information across multiple testimonies may improve crime reconstructions. However, different aggregation methods are available, and research on which method is best suited for aggregating multiple observations is lacking. Furthermore, little is known about how variance in the accuracy of individual testimonies impacts the performance of competing aggregation procedures. We investigated the superiority of aggregation-based crime reconstructions involving multiple individual testimonies and whether this superiority varied as a function of the number of witnesses and the degree of heterogeneity in witnesses' ability to accurately report their observations. Moreover, we examined whether heterogeneity in competence levels differentially affected the relative accuracy of two aggregation procedures: a simple majority rule, which ignores individual differences, and the more complex general Condorcet model (Romney et al., Am Anthropol 88(2):313-338, 1986; Batchelder and Romney, Psychometrika 53(1):71-92, 1988), which takes into account differences in competence between individuals. 121 participants viewed a simulated crime and subsequently answered 128 true/false questions about the crime. We experimentally generated groups of witnesses with homogeneous or heterogeneous competences. Both the majority rule and the general Condorcet model provided more accurate reconstructions of the observed crime than individual testimonies. The superiority of aggregated crime reconstructions involving multiple individual testimonies increased with an increasing number of witnesses. Crime reconstructions were most accurate when competences were heterogeneous and aggregation was based on the general Condorcet model. We argue that a formal aggregation should be considered more often when eyewitness testimonies have to be assessed and that the general Condorcet model provides a good framework for such aggregations.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27832376     DOI: 10.1007/s00426-016-0802-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychol Res        ISSN: 0340-0727


  22 in total

1.  Selecting accurate statements from the cognitive interview using confidence ratings.

Authors:  Wayne T Roberts; Philip A Higham
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Appl       Date:  2002-03

2.  Eye closure helps memory by reducing cognitive load and enhancing visualisation.

Authors:  Annelies Vredeveldt; Graham J Hitch; Alan D Baddeley
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2011-10

3.  On the diagnosticity of multiple-witness identifications.

Authors:  Steven E Clark; Gary L Wells
Journal:  Law Hum Behav       Date:  2007-12-18

4.  When believing is seeing: the effect of scripts on eyewitness memory.

Authors:  M S Greenberg; D R Westcott; S E Bailey
Journal:  Law Hum Behav       Date:  1998-12

5.  Co-witness information can have immediate effects on eyewitness memory reports.

Authors:  J S Shaw; S Garven; J M Wood
Journal:  Law Hum Behav       Date:  1997-10

6.  Memory conformity: disentangling the steps toward influence during a discussion.

Authors:  Fiona Gabbert; Amina Memon; Daniel B Wright
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2006-06

7.  Pragmatics of measuring recognition memory: applications to dementia and amnesia.

Authors:  J G Snodgrass; J Corwin
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  1988-03

8.  Explorations in the social contagion of memory.

Authors:  Michelle L Meade; Henry L Roediger
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2002-10

9.  Common (mis)beliefs about memory: a replication and comparison of telephone and Mechanical Turk survey methods.

Authors:  Daniel J Simons; Christopher F Chabris
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-12-18       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  What people believe about how memory works: a representative survey of the U.S. population.

Authors:  Daniel J Simons; Christopher F Chabris
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-08-03       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.