Effects of postidentification feedback on eyewitness identification and nonidentification confidence

Two experiments investigated new dimensions of the effect of confirming feedback on eyewitness identification confidence using target-absent and target-present lineups and (previously unused) unbiased witness instructions (i.e., “offender not present ” option highlighted). In Experiment 1, participants viewed a crime video and were later asked to try to identify the thief from an 8-person target-absent photo array. Feedback inflated witness confidence for both mistaken identifications and correct lineup rejec-tions. With target-present lineups in Experiment 2, feedback inflated confidence for correct and mistaken identifications and lineup rejections. Although feedback had no influence on the confidence–accuracy correlation, it produced clear overconfidence. Confidence inflation varied with the confidence measure reference point (i.e., retrospective vs. current confidence) and identification response latency. The confidence that eyewitnesses express in their testimony has been considered by the courts to be an important criterion for assessing eyewitness accuracy (Neil v. Biggers, 1972). It has also been shown to exert an important influence on jurors ’ evaluations of witnesses and judgments, with more confident witnesses gen-erally regarded as being more believable witnesses (e.g., Brewer & Burke, 2002; Cutler, Penrod, & Stuve, 1988). Given that experi-mental studies (Cutler & Penrod, 1995) and forensic exoneration cases (Wells et al., 1998) consistently highlight that mistaken eyewitness identifications constitute an important problem, re-search has focused on finding independent markers of identifica-tion accuracy. Within the criminal justice system, an eyewitness’s confidence in his or her identification has long been regarded as a useful independent marker of identification accuracy (Brigham & Wolf