The Perceived Validity of Eyewitness Identification Testimony: A Test of the Five Biggers Criteria
The Perceived Validity of Eyewitness Identification Testimony: A Test of the Five Biggers Criteria
复制标题
目击者辨认证词的有效性：对五个更大标准的检验
DOI：
10.1023/a:1005523129437
复制
发表时间：
2000
影响因子：
2.5
通讯作者：
G. Wells
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Amy L. Bradfield;G. Wells
美国最高法院概述了评估目击者身份的五项标准（确定性、观点、注意力、描述和时间；Neil v. Biggers 1972）。我们假设，在评估目击者辨认证词时，确定性与其他四个比格斯标准有着本质上不同的作用。具体来说，我们假设当确定性较高时（确定性胜过假设），参与者会忽略有关其他标准的报告，但当确定性较低时则不会。参与者（N = 386）阅读一份虚构的试验记录，其中操纵了五个比格斯标准中的三个（确定性、观点和注意力，或确定性、描述和时间）并完成了一份调查问卷。确定性胜过假设没有得到支持。相反，比格斯标准仅结合为主效应，而不是相互作用，支持总结性假设。令人惊讶的是，附带效应表明，对一项标准（例如确定性）的操纵会影响对其他标准（例如注意力和观点）的看法，反之亦然。讨论了结果的含义。
The U.S. Supreme Court has outlined five criteria on which evaluations of eyewitness identifications should be based (certainty, view, attention, description, and time; Neil v. Biggers 1972). We postulated that certainty plays a qualitatively different role from the four other Biggers criteria in evaluations of eyewitness identification testimony. Specifically, we hypothesized that participants would ignore reports on other criteria when certainty was high (the certainty-trumps hypothesis), but not when certainty was low. Participants (N = 386) read a fictitious trial transcript in which three of the five Biggers criteria were manipulated (certainty, view, and attention, or certainty, description, and time) and completed a questionnaire. The certainty-trumps hypothesis was not supported. Instead, the Biggers criteria combined only as main effects, not interactions, supporting a summative hypothesis. Surprisingly, collateral effects indicated that manipulations of one criterion (e.g., certainty) affected perceptions of other criteria (e.g., attention and view) and vice versa. Implications of the results are discussed.