OBJECTIVE We investigated the impact of eyewitness confidence on the following dependent variables: (a) guilty or not-guilty verdict; (b) judgments of guilt as measured on a scale; and (c) mock jurors' perception of the accuracy of an eyewitness's identification. In addition, we examined two potential moderators of the effects of eyewitness confidence: (a) whether the eyewitness expressed confidence at trial versus during the initial lineup identification and (b) whether the eyewitness provided a numerical versus a verbal statement of confidence. HYPOTHESES We expected all analyses to reveal that highly confident eyewitnesses are more persuasive to mock jurors than are eyewitnesses with lower confidence (Hypothesis 1). We expected eyewitness confidence at trial (relative to at identification) to be more persuasive to mock jurors (Hypothesis 2). We expected numerical expressions of confidence to be more persuasive to mock jurors than verbal confidence expressions (Hypothesis 3). METHOD We conducted a meta-analysis of 35 studies from 20 published papers and seven theses or dissertations to quantify the effect of eyewitness confidence on juror judgments and investigated the influence of two primary moderator variables, time of confidence and format of confidence expression. RESULTS All analyses revealed an effect of eyewitness confidence on mock juror decisions (gs = .21-.36). Our moderator analysis showed that the timing of the confidence statement (identification vs. trial) did not affect the influence of eyewitness confidence on mock jurors' judgments of guilt or accuracy. The influence of eyewitness confidence was not moderated by verbal versus numerical expressions of confidence. CONCLUSIONS Although eyewitness confidence is persuasive to mock jurors, the size of this effect is modest. Moreover, verbal and numerical expressions of confidence have similar persuasive effects, and mock jurors do not appear to be sensitive to the likely difference in evidentiary strength of eyewitness confidence expressed at the initial identification versus at trial. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

中文翻译：

---

目击者的信心和模拟陪审员的有罪决定：荟萃分析评论。

目的 我们调查了目击者信心对以下因变量的影响： (a) 有罪或无罪判决；(b) 以量表衡量的有罪判决；(c) 模拟陪审员对目击者身份的准确性的看法。此外，我们检查了目击者信心影响的两个潜在调节因素：（a）目击者在审判时是否表达了信心，而不是在初始阵容识别期间，以及（b）目击者是否提供了数字和口头的信心陈述。假设 我们期望所有的分析都表明，高度自信的目击者比信心较低的目击者对模拟陪审员更有说服力（假设 1）。我们期望目击者在审判中的信心（相对于在识别时）对模拟陪审员更有说服力（假设 2）。我们预计信心的数字表达比口头信心表达对模拟陪审员更具说服力（假设 3）。方法 我们对来自 20 篇已发表论文和 7 篇论文或论文的 35 项研究进行了荟萃分析，以量化目击者信心对陪审员判断的影响，并调查了两个主要调节变量的影响，即置信时间和置信表达格式。结果 所有分析都揭示了目击者信心对模拟陪审员决定的影响（gs = .21-.36）。我们的主持人分析表明，信心陈述的时间安排（鉴定与审判）不影响目击者信心对模拟陪审员的影响。有罪或准确性的判断。目击者信心的影响不受信心的口头表达与数字表达的影响。结论 虽然目击者的信心对模拟陪审员来说是有说服力的，但这种影响的大小是适度的。此外，信心的口头和数字表达具有相似的说服效果，并且模拟陪审员似乎对最初识别与审判时表达的目击者信心的证据强度的可能差异不敏感。（PsycInfo 数据库记录 (c) 2022 APA，保留所有权利）。信心的口头和数字表达具有相似的说服效果，并且模拟陪审员似乎对最初识别与审判时所表达的目击者信心的证据强度的可能差异不敏感。（PsycInfo 数据库记录 (c) 2022 APA，保留所有权利）。信心的口头和数字表达具有相似的说服效果，并且模拟陪审员似乎对最初识别与审判时所表达的目击者信心的证据强度的可能差异不敏感。（PsycInfo 数据库记录 (c) 2022 APA，保留所有权利）。