Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40169860›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Comparing the strength of the confidence-accuracy versus response time-accuracy relationship for eyewitness identification.

Curt A Carlson, Robert F Lockamyeir, Maria A Carlson, Charles A Goodsell, Alyssa R Jones, Alex R Wooten, Zane T Brand

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Does Eyewitness Confidence Calibration Vary by Target Race?Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Curt A CarlsonEast Texas A&M University, Commerce, TX, USA. curt.carlson@tamuc.edu.
Robert F LockamyeirState University of New York at Oneonta, Oneonta, NY, USA.
Maria A CarlsonEast Texas A&M University, Commerce, TX, USA.
Charles A GoodsellCanisius University, Buffalo, NY, USA.
Alyssa R JonesTarleton State University, Stephenville, TX, USA.
Alex R WootenHollins University, Hollins, VA, USA.
Zane T BrandEast Texas A&M University, Commerce, TX, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Research indicates that eyewitness identification (ID) accuracy increases with faster IDs and those supported with immediate high confidence, but it is not clear which measure, confidence or response time, is the better reflector of accuracy. It is also important to know how well these patterns hold up across important factors affecting eyewitness ID accuracy such as memory strength for the perpetrator's face. We conducted four pre-registered experiments to investigate these issues across different levels of target memory strength (via encoding time or image quality) and ID procedure (showups vs. lineups of different filler quality). Correct IDs were faster than false IDs regardless of memory strength, and this difference was greater for lineups than showups. There was a consistently strong positive CA relationship for those who made an ID, but the RTA relationship was significantly weaker. Both relationships were weaker for those who made a rejection decision, but the CA relationship remained stronger than the RTA relationship. We conclude that immediate confidence may be a more important reflector of accuracy than response time, regardless of the quality of the memory for the perpetrator's face.

Indexed as

Mental RecallReaction TimeAdultFaceFemaleHumansMaleMemoryRecognition, PsychologyYoung AdultConfidenceEyewitness identificationLineupsMemory strengthResponse timeShowups

Identifiers

PMID40169860
PMCPMC11962128

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.