Outcome and Process Parallelism in Mock Witness and Eyewitness Identification

模拟证人模式要求模拟证人-“证人”，他们被口头描述了罪犯，但从未见过他-查看一组人或照片，并试图选择嫌疑人。 如果嫌疑人被随机选择的次数比预期的多，那么列队或照片就被认为是偏向嫌疑人的，因此是不公平的。 自1973年以来，模拟证人范式以各种形式被用于两个重要目的：作为评估目击证人辨认研究中列队和照片传播的公平性难度的基础，以及作为各种法律的案件中辩护方对公平性的事后评估的基础。 模拟证人模式的基本有效性已被广泛假设，但从未具体评估或证明。 实验室的研究表明，当应用于连续演示时，模拟证人评估的结果并不遵循类似条件下目击者的预期模式。 这些结果提出了一系列的问题，包括以下几个方面：模拟证人和目击证人之间的重要区别是什么？ 这些差异是否会导致两类证人的心理过程相互偏离--过程平行的失败？ 社会环境和判断过程的差异是否会导致选择罪犯的速度和准确性的差异？ 他们是否会对阵容或照片的公平性产生相反的判断？ 这些似乎是重要的问题。 在程序和结果不同并导致不同结果的情况下，模拟证人模式受到质疑。 如果它是无效的，我们将只剩下非常繁琐的方法来评估阵容/照片传播的公平性，在研究和法律的过程。 本研究所采用的方法是根据犯罪现场的录像，观察者的观看条件的质量不同，并规定使用多个“罪犯”。 试点研究校准的质量的观看条件下的录像犯罪和校准不同程度的photospread偏见。 “罪犯”的照片和用作陪衬的照片来自埃尔帕索警察局的程序和档案。 从历史上看，从目击者的数据集中在选择，准确性和其他分类的证人的阵容/photospread的选择，而从模拟证人的数据已被用于在总估计对被告的偏见和适当的铝箔中采用的阵容/photospread。 这项调查是在一个位置，以检查这两套因变量的目击者和模拟证人，提供了一个共同的基础，检查结果的平行性。 看过犯罪录像带的证人对罪犯作了口头描述。 模拟证人将与每一位目击证人联系在一起，并将得到目击证人的口头描述，从而保持两组证人的差异范围，并为比较结果提供更有力的基础。 这项研究将阐明适合模拟证人评估的条件，从而将扎实的基础研究与巨大的应用潜力结合起来，联合收割机。

The Mock witness Paradigm asks mock witnesses - `witnesses` who have been given a verbal description of an offender but who have never seen him - to view a lineup or photospread and try to choose the suspect. If the suspect is chosen more often than expected by chance, the lineup or photospread is said to be biased towards the suspect, and thus unfair. Since 1973 the Mock Witness Paradigm has been used in various forms for two important purposes: as the basis for evaluation of the difficulty of the fairness of lineups and photospreads in studies of eyewitness identification, and as the basis for post hoc assessments of fairness by the defense in a variety of legal cases. The basic validity of the mock witness paradigm has been widely assumed but never specifically evaluated or demonstrated. Studies in the laboratory demonstrate that when applied to sequential presentations, the outcomes of mock witness evaluation do not follow the pattern expected of eyewitnesses under similar conditions. These results raise a series of questions including the following: What are the important differences between mock witness and eyewitness identification decision making contexts and processes? Do these differences lead the psychological processes in the two types of witnesses to diverge from each other - a failure of process parallelism? Do differences in social contexts and judgment processes lead to contrasts in the rates and accuracy of choosing the offender? And do they result in contrasting judgments of the fairness of lineups or photospreads? These seem to be important questions. To the extent processes and outcomes differ and lead to different outcomes the mock witness paradigm is called into question. If it is invalidated we would be left with only very cumbersome ways to evaluate lineup/photospread fairness in research and in the legal process. The methodology employed in this study is based on videotaped crime scenes, varying in the quality of the viewing conditions for the observer, and providing for the use of multiple `offenders`. Pilot studies calibrate the quality of the viewing conditions in the videotaped crime and calibrate varying levels of photospread bias. Photographs of the `offenders` and those to be used as foils come from the procedures and files of the El Paso Police Department. Historically, data from eyewitnesses has focused on choosing, accuracy and other classifications of the witness's lineup/photospread choice, while data taken from mock witnesses has been used in the aggregate to estimate the bias toward the defendant and the appropriateness of the foils employed in the lineup/photospread. This investigation is in a position to examine both sets of dependent variables for eyewitnesses and mock witnesses, providing a common basis for examining outcome parallelism. Witnesses who have viewed the videotaped crime provide a verbal description of the offender. A mock witness will be yoked with each eyewitness and will be given the eyewitness's verbal description, thereby preserving the range of variation in both sets of witnesses and providing a stronger basis for comparison of outcomes. This research will clarify the conditions which are appropriate for mock witness evaluation and thus combine solid basic research with high potential for application.