Reducing Eyewitness Identification Errors: Procedural Strategies

目击者研究人员最近开始研究警方可能采用的各种替代阵容和照片阵列程序对目击者准确性的影响。一项主要的程序创新是顺序阵列。顺序法不是一次呈现所有人--传统的同时呈现法--而是一次呈现一个阵容/阵列成员，需要证人识别或拒绝每个人。显然，顺序程序可以显著减少错误识别(以某些丢失的正确识别为代价)，而且有迹象表明，改进的原因是证人采用的决策策略发生了变化(从同时面孔相互比较的相对过程转变为将阵列成员与犯罪者的记忆进行比较的绝对过程)。然而，对这些过程的现有研究根本没有解决以下理论问题：顺序程序的有益效果是部分或全部通过程序变化产生的决策标准的简单变化实现的，还是完全是决策策略实际(和/或报告的)变化的结果。由于现有的研究没有权威性地回答过程问题，我们不知道以下问题的答案--研究的对象：1.教学的效果。通过顺序程序(这会招致从业人员--尤其是检察官)的反对意见，能否通过简单的警示或决策指示实现大幅减少虚假身份(但正确身份损失较小)？2.阵容大小。阵容的大小在多大程度上对顺序程序有影响。阵容说明可以抵消任何尺寸效应吗？3.阵容大小的知识。知道要观察的面孔的数量是否会按顺序影响性能，这种影响是否会随着更大的阵列或替代指令的减少而减少？4.位置效应。同时进行的程序中是否存在(实质性的)位置影响，这可能会对程序产生不利影响，或者会有利于在序列中相对较早地放置嫌疑人？5.回顾。停止规则-如果证人在第一次通过时没有(或确实)做出选择，是否允许他们“回去”并重新检查面孔-对表现有多大影响？6.多项选择。是否应该允许证人从顺序排列中进行多项选择？指令会影响多项选择的模式吗？7.失明。多重选择或重新检查程序是否使顺序排列更容易受到非盲目陈述偏见的影响(可能是执行程序的警察提出的建议)？陈述官员不知道嫌疑人是谁的指示是否减少了非盲目效果？该提议的学术价值在于它有可能回答这些关键问题。这项研究对本科教学、学院、代表不足的群体的研究参与、研究社区和社会都有广泛的影响。该项目旨在让本科和硕士学位课程的学生参与并为他们提供指导。本科生和硕士研究生将担任研究助理，具体目标是促进研究兴趣和培养对研究的兴趣，以及研究生教育的兴趣。研究成果将用于促进课堂上对研究的讨论(在刑事司法学院具有特别重要的意义)。这些数据将用于研究方法和统计方面的培训。代表不足的群体将参与整个过程，因为John Jay有一个多元化的学生群体(60%的少数族裔学生)，学生群体中将寻找参与者和研究助理。该项目的存在将使学院受益，因为它增加了对研究的参与--这是管理部门的一个主要目标。研究结果将在心理学和法律界广泛传播。将在跨学科会议和针对法律政策制定者的会议上作大会发言。结果将发表在两个学术期刊上，供心理学家查阅，并发表在法律评论上，供法律界查阅。数据将提供给其他研究人员和感兴趣的各方。此外，数据和结果将被用来在课堂上提供研究方法、统计学、心理学和法学方面的指导。这些成果有可能使整个社会受益，因为它们可以突出法律实践中有待改进的领域。该提案的前提是，目前的法律实践是在缺乏经验数据的情况下产生的--这些数据将由研究提供--并可能得到显著改进。

Eyewitness researchers have recently started examining the impact on eyewitness accuracy of a variety of alternative lineup and photo-array procedures that might be employed by the police. One major procedural innovation is the sequential array. Instead of being presented all at one time-the traditional simultaneous method--the sequential method presents lineup/array members one at a time and requires witnesses to identify or reject each individual. It is clear that sequential procedures can appreciably reduce mistaken identifications (at the cost of some lost correct identifications) and there are indications that the reason for the improvement is a change in the decision-making strategies employed by witnesses (a shift from a relative process in which simultaneous faces are compared to one another) to an absolute process in which array members are compared with memory for the perpetrator. However, existing research on these processes simply does not resolve the theoretical question of whether the salutary effects of sequential procedures are realized in part or wholly through simple shifts in decision criteria produced by changes in procedure or are exclusively the result of actual (and/or reported) changes in decision strategies. Because existing research does not answer the process question authoritatively, we do not know answers to the following questions-the targets of the research: 1. Effects of Instructions. Can the substantial reductions in false identifications (but smaller loss in correct identifications) achieved with sequential procedures (which draw objections from practitioners- particularly prosecutors) be achieved with simple caution-inducing or decisionmaking instructions? 2. Lineup Size. How much does lineup size matter with respect, particularly, to sequential procedures. Can lineup instructions offset any size effects? 3. Knowledge of Lineup Size. Does knowledge of the number of faces to be viewed sequentially affect performance and are such effects reduced with larger arrays or alternative instructions? 4. Position Effects. Are there (substantial) position effects in simultaneous procedures that might weigh against the procedure-or weigh in favor of placing suspects relatively early in a sequence? 5. Reviewing. How much do stopping rules-whether witnesses are permitted to "go back" and reexamine faces if they do not (or do) make a selection on the first pass affect performance? 6. Multiple Choices. Should witnesses should be permitted to make multiple choices from sequential lineups? Do instructions affect the patterns of multiple choices? 7. Blindness. Do multiple selection or re-examination procedures make sequential lineups even more vulnerable to non-blind presentation biases (possible suggestion by police conducting the procedures)? Do instructions that the presenting officer does not know who the suspect is reduce non-blind effects? The intellectual merit of the proposal is in its potential to answer these crucial questions. The research has a broad impact on undergraduate teaching, the college, research participation by underrepresented groups, the research community, and on society. The project is designed to involve and provide instruction for students in both undergraduate and masters degree programs. Undergraduates and masters degree students will be involved as research assistants, with the specific goal of promoting interest and training in research and interest in post-graduate education. Research results will be used to promote discussion of research in the classroom (of particular relevance at a criminal justice college). The data will be made available for training in research methods and statistics. Underrepresented groups will be involved in the entire process, as John Jay has a diverse student body (60% minority students) and both participants and research assistants will be sought in the student body. The existence of the project will benefit the College by increasing its involvement in research--a major goal of the administration. The research results will be broadly disseminated in both the psychological and legal communities. Conference presentations will be made at interdisciplinary conferences and those conferences targeting legal policy makers. Results will be published in both academic journals for access by psychologists and in law reviews for access by the legal community. Data will be made available to other researchers and interested parties. Additionally, data and results will be used to provide instruction on research methods, statistics, psychology, and law in the classroom. The results have the potential to benefit society as a whole because they could highlight areas of improvement in legal practice. The proposal is based on the premise that current legal practices have been created in the absence of empirical data-which will be supplied by the studies-and may be improved significantly.