Abstract
In the current issue, Wixted, Mickes, and Fisher make the claim that eyewitness memory is not inherently unreliable. They also describe specific conditions under which an eyewitness’s confidence can be a reliable indicator of accuracy in the context of both recall and recognition. We argue, however, that calculating the probative value of eyewitness evidence is more complicated than the authors acknowledge. In this commentary, we raise several concerns about the collection and assessment of eyewitness confidence in the real world. We also discuss how frequently the conditions specified by Wixted et al. are met in real cases. The potential for memory contamination is commonplace and can likely be outside the control of investigators. Moreover, there is reason to doubt that legal decision makers are sensitive to the myriad ways that eyewitness memory can be influenced. Because of this, we think eyewitness-memory scientists would do well to further research the intricacies of eyewitness confidence in the real world.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.