Calibration trumps confidence as a basis for witness credibility
Tenney, MacCoun, Spellman and Hastie note that confident witnesses are judged more credible than unconfident ones and accurate witnesses more credible than inaccurate ones, and ask whether the two effects are independent. Two experiments show that errors in testimony damage the credibility of witnesses who were confident about the erroneous testimony more than that of witnesses who were not, and that after an error a less confident witness may appear more credible than a more confident one. The authors interpret the results as people inferring source calibration when evaluating testimony and other social communication. No sample sizes in the abstract.
Tenney, MacCoun, Spellman and Hastie note that confident witnesses are judged more credible than unconfident ones and accurate witnesses more credible than inaccurate ones, and ask whether the two effects are independent. Two experiments show that errors in testimony damage the credibility of witnesses who were confident about the erroneous testimony more than that of witnesses who were not, and that after an error a less confident witness may appear more credible than a more confident one. The authors interpret the results as people inferring source calibration when evaluating testimony and other social communication. No sample sizes in the abstract.
Written from the abstract via OpenAlex record, 2026-11-03; full text not read.
What our sources record
Recorded when this source was checked, figures included, with page references and quotation marks removed.
Tenney, E. R., MacCoun, R. J., Spellman, B. A., & Hastie, R. (2007). Calibration trumps confidence as a basis for witness credibility. Psychological Science, 18(1). doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01847.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01847.x