Eyewitness Identification of a "Familiar Stranger": The Influence of Personal Knowledge and Previous Interaction on Recall and Recognition Accuracy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the present program of research was to examine the influence of a previous interaction and personal knowledge of a culprit on eyewitness recall and recognition accuracy. In the main study, participants (N=184) watched a video of a crime wherein the culprit was someone who: (1) they previously interacted with and, during that interaction, the culprit shared personal information about herself (more familiar condition), (2) they previously interacted with, although they received no personal information about the culprit (less familiar condition), or (3) they had no previous exposure to (stranger condition). There were no significant differences in participants' recall accuracy across the conditions. However, participants in the more and less familiar conditions were significantly more likely to correctly identify the culprit from a targetpresent lineup; there were no significant differences in the target-absent lineup. Also, more and less familiar participants were significantly more confident in their ability to correctly identify the culprit prior to the lineup task and during the lineup task than those in the stranger condition. Moreover, the confidence-accuracy relationship was strongest for those in the more familiar condition. A follow up study, completed approximately 14 months after the original study, was conducted to examine the influence of familiarity and delay on eyewitnesses who initially provided a correct lineup response. Delay was associated with a significant decline in accuracy rates and confidence for those in all conditions. Overall, results indicate that previous interaction, regardless of whether personal information is shared, may enhance eyewitness identification accuracy only when the culprit is in the identification lineup (i.e., when the suspect is guilty). Also, EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATION OF A "FAMILIAR STRANGER" iii more familiar eyewitnesses may have a better sense of their identification accuracy, as indicated by their confidence judgements.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".