Collaborative Research: Understanding and Predicting Eyewitness Identification Errors: Studies Using a Unique Set of Materials from Actual Lineups

法医DNA检测已经在美国释放了数百名无辜的人，其中大约75%的定罪涉及错误的目击者识别。显然，需要找出可靠的方法来区分准确和错误的身份。理论和实验室模拟实验的数据表明，准确和错误的身份识别在可测量的方面存在差异(例如，身份识别速度、置信度、证人言辞)。实验室研究还表明，阵容偏见(例如，无辜的嫌疑人脱颖而出或管理员无意中引导证人)可能会夸大错误的身份。然而，实验室模拟参与者知道犯罪不是真实的，无法捕捉到实际证人的潜在重要动态(例如，恐惧、正义动机、对后果的担忧)。研究人员从实际案件中获得了独特的材料，这些案件涉及855个照片阵容，其中每个阵容中只有一个人是嫌疑人。其他阵容成员都是已知的-无辜的填充者。填充者身份识别构成错误识别，占所有身份识别的34%。研究人员提供的软件对证人的言辞、辨认速度和其他相关信息进行了录音。大多数名单都是双盲进行的；因此，名单管理人员不知道哪张是嫌疑人的照片，因此无法引导证人。进行了四项研究。研究1测试阵容偏见是否预示着错误的身份识别。研究2测试了目击者的言语是否预示了错误。研究3测试了错误是否比可疑的身份识别更慢，更不确定。研究4测试了双盲阵容程序是否证明阵容管理员的指导性较少。数据分析涉及分层、混合模型对数线性分析或ANOVA。这项工作可以帮助将实验室模拟结果转化为实际案件，从而帮助司法系统在错误和准确的身份识别之间进行区分。研究结果将与科学家、警方和检察官广泛分享。本科生，包括第一代和在一所小型本科学院的有色人种，将接受这个项目的研究培训。

Forensic DNA testing has freed hundreds of innocent people in the U.S. and approximately 75% of these convictions involved mistaken eyewitness identification. The need to identify reliable ways to sort between accurate and mistaken identifications is readily apparent. Theory and data from laboratory-simulation experiments indicate that accurate and mistaken identifications differ in measurable ways (e.g., identification speed, confidence, witness verbalizations). Lab research also shows that lineup biases (e.g., innocent suspect stands out or administrator unintentionally steers the witness) can inflate mistaken identifications. Lab simulation participants, however, know that the crime is not real and fail to capture potentially important dynamics of actual witnesses (e.g., fear, justice motivations, concern for consequences). The researchers have unique materials from actual cases involving 855 photo-lineups where only one person in each lineup was a suspect. The other lineup members were known-innocent fillers. Filler identifications, which constitute mistaken identifications, comprise 34% of all identifications. Software provided by the researchers made audio recordings of witnesses' verbalizations, speed of identifications, and other relevant information for each lineup. A majority of the lineups were administered double-blind; thus, lineup administrators were unaware of which was the suspect's photo and hence could not steer the witness. Four studies were conducted. Study 1 tests whether lineup bias predicts mistaken identifications. Study 2 tests whether witness verbalizations predict mistakes. Study 3 tests whether mistakes are slower and made with less certainty than suspect identifications. Study 4 tests whether double-blind lineup procedures evidence less steering by the lineup administrators. Data analyses involve hierarchical, mixed model log-linear analyses or ANOVAs. This work can help translate lab simulation findings to actual cases and thereby help the justice system sort between mistaken and accurate identifications. Results will be shared broadly with scientists, police and prosecutors. Undergraduate students, including first-generation and those of color at a small undergraduate college, will receive research training in this project.