Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42807473›Full record

ArticlePsychiatry, psychology, and law : an interdisciplinary journal of the Australian and New Zealand Association of Psychiatry, Psychology and Law2026

This is what happened . . . I think?: Indicators of uncertainty when witnesses recall a single or repeated event.

Helen M Paterson, Sarah L Deck, Hongyuan Wang, Tiana Carnemolla

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Psychiatry, psychology, and law : an interdisciplinary journal of the Australian and New Zealand Association of Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Helen M PatersonSchool of Psychology, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9283-4349
Sarah L DeckCentre for Investigative Interviewing, Griffith Criminology Institute, Griffith University, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9213-0352
Hongyuan WangSchool of Psychology, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Tiana CarnemollaSchool of Psychology, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Some crimes, such as domestic and family violence, are often experienced repeatedly. However, previous research indicates that repeated-event witnesses can be perceived as less credible than those who recall an event that only occurred once, and even those who lie about having witnessed an event. The current study aimed to investigate whether these lower credibility ratings may be due, at least partially, to repeated-event witnesses being more uncertain when describing what happened. Across two studies, coders analysed the reports of mock-witnesses who observed either a single or a repeated event. Results indicated that repeated-event witnesses used significantly more hedge words (such as 'I think' or 'I guess') than single-event witnesses. Such differences in verbal indicators of uncertainty shed light on the mechanisms behind the lower credibility ratings of repeated-event witnesses.

Indexed as

eyewitness memoryhedgingjuror decision-makingrepeated eventswitness credibility

Identifiers

PMID42807473
PMCPMC13618126

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.