Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition 1 (2012) 152–157 Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jarmac Can a modified lineup procedure improve the usefulness of confidence?  Nathan Weber ∗ , Martina Varga School of Psychology, Flinders University, Australia article info Article history: Received 25 March 2012 Received in revised form 28 June 2012 Accepted 29 June 2012 Available online 11 July 2012 Keywords: Confidence Recognition memory Confidence–accuracy Eyewitness identification abstract In a face recognition, mini-lineup experiment we examined two aspects of the use of confidence about lineups. We modified the lineup procedure attempting to eliminate the difference in confidence–accuracy relationship between positive (old or identification) and negative (new or not present) decisions. In the modified procedure, participants: (1) selected the lineup member that best matched their memory of the target; (2) rated their confidence that the best match was indeed the target; and (3) indicated (yes/no) whether the best match was the target. Although the modified procedure produced higher accuracy than a standard simultaneous procedure, there was no evidence that it affected the confidence–accuracy relationship. Additionally, the modified procedure also allowed us to compare the extent to which confi- dence ratings versus binary recognition decisions better discriminated studied from unstudied faces. The results revealed a clear advantage for confidence, but indicated that binary responses were also a unique predictor. © 2012 Society of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction Eyewitness identification evidence plays an important role in modern legal systems. The fallibility of such evidence has, therefore, motivated much research addressing the aims of improving the accuracy of identification decisions and also improving our ability to diagnose their accuracy. Confidence has long been investigated in relation to the latter aim. More recently, confidence has been used in new lineup procedures that replace a standard decision with a set of confidence ratings, producing more accurate evidence of guilt/innocence (Brewer, Weber, Wootton, & Lindsay, in press; Sauer, Brewer, & Weber, 2008). We conducted a single experiment, using a face recognition, mini-lineup paradigm relating to both of these aims. Specifically, we tested a novel adaptation of the lineup procedure intended to improve the confidence–accuracy relation- ship, particularly for lineup rejections (responses that the offender is not present in the lineup). Further, we compared the evidence provided by confidence ratings alone with that provided by stan- dard recognition decisions.  This research was supported under Australian Research Council’s Discovery Projects funding scheme (project number DP0878901). We thank Dan Wright for his useful comments on an earlier draft. ∗ Corresponding author at: School of Psychology, Flinders University, GPO Box 2100, Adelaide, South Australia 5001, Australia. Tel.: +61 8 8201 2968; fax: +61 8 8201 3877. E-mail address: nathan.weber@flinders.edu.au (N. Weber). 1.1. Confidence in lineup rejections A growing body of evidence suggests that confidence judgments provide the best available indicator of the accuracy of a positive identification from a lineup (Brewer & Wells, 2006; Lindsay, Read, & Sharma, 1998). However, both eyewitness identification (Sauer, Brewer, Zweck, & Weber, 2010; Sporer, Penrod, Read, & Cutler, 1995) and face recognition (Weber & Brewer, 2003, 2004) studies consistently demonstrate that confidence in negative recognition decisions (decisions that a stimulus was not previously seen or not present decisions about lineups) is a poorer, and often negligible, predictor of accuracy than confidence in positive decisions. This positive–negative difference manifests as a difference in the prop- erty of the confidence–accuracy relationship known as resolution (the ability of confidence to discriminate correct from incorrect decisions). At first glance, the lack of a reliable indicator of the accu- racy of lineup rejections may not appear an applied problem. After all, unlike a false identification, an incorrect rejection cannot lead directly to the conviction of an innocent suspect. However, reviews of eyewitness identification research consistently demonstrate that lineup rejections are diagnostic of the suspect’s innocence (Clark, Howell, & Davey, 2008). Further, in cases with multiple witnesses, the weight of evidence provided by an identification of the suspect is dramatically reduced when a second witness rejects the lineup (Clark & Wells, 2008). Finally, the ability to confidently rule out a suspect has obvious benefits for the police by redirecting resources toward other lines of enquiry. Thus, a procedure that allows con- fidence to discriminate between correct and incorrect rejections, without sacrificing the accuracy of decisions or the ability to 2211-3681/$ – see front matter © 2012 Society of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2012.06.007