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指认和照片排列程序对目击者准确性的影响。一个主要的程序创新是顺序数组。与传统的同时出庭法不同，顺序出庭法每次只出庭一人，并要求证人指认或拒绝指认每一个人。很明显，顺序程序可以显著减少错误识别（以失去一些正确识别为代价），并且有迹象表明，改进的原因是证人采用的决策策略的变化（从一个相对过程的转变，在这个过程中，同时的面孔相互比较）到一个绝对过程，在这个过程中，数组成员与犯罪者的记忆进行比较。然而，关于这些过程的现有研究根本没有解决这样一个理论问题：顺序程序的有益效果是部分或全部通过程序变化所产生的决策标准的简单变化来实现的，还是仅仅是决策策略实际（和/或报告）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-研究的目标：1。指令的效果。通过顺序程序（会引起从业人员——尤其是检察官的反对），能否通过简单的警告诱导或决策指示，大幅减少虚假身份（但减少正确身份的损失）？2. 阵容的大小。阵容的大小有多重要，特别是对顺序程序。阵容指令能抵消任何尺寸效应吗？3. 了解阵容规模。了解要依次查看的面孔的数量是否会影响性能？使用较大的数组或替代指令是否会降低这种影响？4. 位置效应。在同时进行的程序中，是否存在（实质性的）位置效应，可能会对程序产生不利影响，或者有利于将嫌疑人置于相对较早的顺序中？5. 回顾。停止规则——如果证人在第一轮中没有（或确实）做出选择，是否允许“返回”并重新检查面孔——对他们的表现有多大影响？6. 多个选择。证人是否应该被允许从顺序排列中做出多个选择？说明是否会影响多项选择的模式？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呈现偏见的影响（可能是警察进行这些程序的暗示）？不知道嫌疑人是谁的指示会降低非盲效应吗？这一建议的学术价值在于它有可能回答这些关键问题。这些研究对本科教学、学院、代表性不足的群体的研究参与、研究界和社会都有广泛的影响。该项目旨在为本科和硕士学位课程的学生提供指导。本科生和硕士生将作为研究助理参与，具体目标是促进对研究和研究生教育兴趣的兴趣和培训。研究结果将用于促进课堂上的研究讨论（在刑事司法学院尤其相关）。这些数据将提供给研究方法和统计方面的培训。由于约翰·杰伊拥有多元化的学生群体（60%是少数族裔学生），因此整个过程中都会有代表性不足的群体参与，参与者和研究助理都将在学生群体中寻找。该项目的存在将使学院受益，因为它增加了对研究的参与——这是行政部门的一个主要目标。研究结果将在心理和法律界广泛传播。会议报告将在跨学科会议和针对法律决策者的会议上发表。结果将发表在学术期刊上，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，数据和结果将用于在课堂上提供研究方法、统计学、心理学和法律方面的指导。研究结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。这项建议是基于这样一个前提，即当前的法律实践是在缺乏经验数据的情况下建立起来的——这些数据将由研究提供——并且可能得到显著改进。

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.