Eyewitnesses' Retrospective Reports on External Influences

摘要：《目击者对外部影响的回顾性报告》，作者：Gary L. Wells，法律体系在很大程度上依赖于目击者来帮助定罪犯罪者，并使无辜者免于怀疑。这样做的一个主要方法是使用一组照片，其中将嫌疑人的照片放在填充照片中，并要求目击者识别其中哪一张照片（如果有的话）是犯罪者的照片。然而，科学实验以及对无辜者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，比如指认前的暗示性指示，指认管理员无意中给指认者的暗示，以及指认后增强目击者信心的评论。法院长期以来一直认为，只要询问目击者是否发生了这些暗示性影响事件，以及如果发生了，他们是否受到了暗示性事件的影响，就很容易发现任何此类影响。即将进行的实验旨在测试目击者是否能回忆起这些暗示性事件，以及他们是否能准确地报告这些暗示性事件是否影响了他们的反应。参与者将观看模拟犯罪，然后经历各种暗示性事件，这些事件会导致他们从照片中做出错误的指认。暗示性事件的实际影响将通过比较他们与没有受到暗示性事件的参与者的识别决定（和他们的信心）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，他们将被告知暗示性事件，并被问及如果没有发生暗示性事件，他们的识别决定和信心会是什么。预计参与者证人将难以回忆起暗示事件，特别是在7天后。此外，预计参与者-证人将大大低估暗示事件对其识别决策和信心的影响。预计研究结果将对法律体系依赖目击者报告暗示性影响的做法产生重大影响，并为法律体系采取措施从一开始就消除暗示性事件的发生提供新的激励。此外，这些实验将有助于我们理解人们自我报告影响其判断和决策的因素的能力的局限性。

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.