ArticleScientific reports2026
Different types of facial description alter the confidence-accuracy relationship.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Eyewitnesses commonly provide facial descriptions after the commission of a crime. Although research suggests that this description may improve memory (i.e., verbal facilitation), less is known about what types of descriptions (e.g., parts-based featural, trait-based holistic) are most suitable to maximize accuracy. To address this gap, participants studied two blocks of 12 faces (i.e., 24 total study faces) and performed either a Description (i.e., featural, trait) or Control (i.e., counting, addition) task after each (condition names representing block order). Following a short distractor, participants completed two types of recognition memory tests. The inclusion test instructed participants to respond "yes" to all studied faces in both blocks and "no" to new faces. Conversely, the exclusion test instructed participants to respond "yes" to studied faces in Block 1 and "no" to studied faces in Block 2 and new faces. Participants subsequently provided confidence and source-memory judgments. With respect to accuracy, either type of Description (as opposed to Control) facilitated memory. Participants who completed a Description-Control or Control-Description block order combination outperformed Control-Control participants. Participants' exclusion test performance showed a similar description advantage; Description-Control outperformed Control-Description and Control-Control. Although a general description advantage emerged for overall accuracy, the confidence-accuracy relationship manifested in different ways. The number of trait descriptors increased accuracy without affecting confidence. The number of featural descriptors increased confidence without affecting accuracy. We discuss these findings and their implications for guiding person descriptions for different types of eyewitnesses with and without advanced preparation of witnessing a criminal event.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.