Eyewitnesses' Retrospective Reports on External Influences

摘要《目击者对外部影响的回顾报告》加里·L·威尔斯认为，司法系统在很大程度上依赖目击者来帮助判定肇事者有罪，并让无辜的人免于怀疑。这样做的一个主要方法是使用照相阵容，将嫌疑人的照片放在填充物照片中，并要求目击者识别哪些照片(如果有)是肇事者的照片。然而，科学实验以及对无辜的人被定罪的实际案例的研究表明，目击者在某些情况下容易出错。特别是，目击者很容易受到外部因素的影响，例如提示性的阵容前指示，来自阵容管理员关于选择哪个人的无意提示，以及在选择后增强目击者信心的评论。长期以来，法院一直认为，只要询问目击者这些暗示性影响事件是否发生，如果发生，它们是否受到暗示性事件的影响，就很容易发现任何此类影响。将进行的实验旨在测试目击者是否能回忆起这样的暗示事件，以及他们是否能准确地报告暗示事件是否影响了他们的反应。参与者将观看模拟犯罪，然后受到各种暗示事件的影响，这些事件会导致他们从照片序列中做出错误的识别。暗示性事件的实际影响将通过将他们的识别决定(和他们的信心)与没有受到暗示性事件影响的参与者进行比较来衡量。参与者-证人将被要求立即或七天后回忆任何有暗示意义的事件。然后，他们将被告知暗示事件，并被问及如果没有发生暗示事件，他们的识别决定和信心会是什么。预计参与者证人将很难回忆起这一具有提示性的事件，特别是在七天后。此外，预计参与者目击者会大大低估提示性事件对他们的识别决定和信心的影响。预计这一结果将对法律系统对目击者报告暗示影响的依赖产生强烈影响，并为法律系统采取措施消除首先发生的暗示事件提供新的激励。此外，这些实验将为我们理解人们自我报告影响他们的判断和决定的因素的能力的限度提供新的线索。

Abstract"Eyewitnesses' Retrospective Reports on External Influences" Gary L. Wells, PIThe legal system relies heavily on eyewitnesses to help convict perpetrators and to free innocents from suspicion. A primary method for doing this is to use a photographic lineup in which a suspect's photo is placed among filler photos and the eyewitness is asked to identify which of the photos, if any, is of the perpetrator. Scientific experiments as well as studies of actual cases of convictions of innocent people, however, reveal that eyewitnesses are prone to error under certain conditions. In particular, eyewitnesses are easily influenced by external factors, such as suggestive pre-lineup instructions, unintentional cues from the lineup administrator as to which person to select, and comments that bolster the confidence of the eyewitness after the selection. Courts have long assumed that any such influences are readily discoverable by merely questioning the eyewitness as to whether these suggestive influence events occurred and, if so, whether they were influenced by the suggestive event. The experiments that will be conducted are designed to test whether eyewitnesses can recall such suggestive events and whether they can accurately report on whether the suggestive events influenced their responses. Participants will view simulated crimes and then be subjected to various suggestive events that lead them to make mistaken identifications from photo lineups. The actual impact of the suggestive events will be measured by comparing their identification decisions (and their confidence) to participants who were not subjected to the suggestive events. Either immediately or seven days later the participant-witnesses will be asked to recall any suggestive events. They will then be told about the suggestive event and asked what their identification decision and confidence would have been had the suggestive event not occurred. It is expected that participant-witnesses will have difficulty recalling the suggestive event, especially after seven days. In addition, it is expected that participant-witnesses will greatly underestimate the impact that the suggestive event had on their identification decisions and confidence. The results are expected to have strong implications for the legal system's reliance on eyewitnesses to report suggestive influences and provide a new incentive for the legal system to take measures to eliminate the suggestive events from occurring in the first place. In addition, these experiments will shed new light on our understanding of the limits to people's abilities to self-report on the factors that affect their judgments and decisions.