Eyewitness identifications based on biased or unbiased line-up instructions after a realistic and violent hostage simulation

IF 0.8 4区 心理学 Q4 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY
Thomas J. Nyman, Giulia Cappa, Angelo Zappalà, Pekka Santtila
{"title":"Eyewitness identifications based on biased or unbiased line-up instructions after a realistic and violent hostage simulation","authors":"Thomas J. Nyman,&nbsp;Giulia Cappa,&nbsp;Angelo Zappalà,&nbsp;Pekka Santtila","doi":"10.1002/jip.1624","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Few earlier studies have investigated the effects of highly stressful, realistic, violent, and threatening scenarios on eyewitness identification accuracy in an ecologically valid setting. The majority of studies have relied on laboratory-based simulated (videos/images) experiments. The present study investigated line-up accuracy approximately 1 week after a hostage simulation event. We administered biased line-up instructions to 50% of participants to investigate how this impacted choosing behaviour and accuracy. Based on 1030 line-up decisions (<i>N</i> = 122), we found that average accuracy was 38% in target present (TP) and 54% in target absent (TA) line-ups and that biased line-up instructions decreased overall accuracy (vs. unbiased). The hit rate for TP line-ups with biased instructions was 0.43 (unbiased instructions: 0.33), while the false alarm rate for TA line-ups with biased instructions was 0.60 (unbiased instructions: 0.32). We found that high confidence was associated with correct identifications and that shorter response times were indicative of correct rejections. Our findings demonstrate, in a more realistic scenario than the majority of eyewitness identification studies, the effect that biased line-up instructions lead to increased choosing and decreased accuracy.</p>","PeriodicalId":46397,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jip.1624","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Few earlier studies have investigated the effects of highly stressful, realistic, violent, and threatening scenarios on eyewitness identification accuracy in an ecologically valid setting. The majority of studies have relied on laboratory-based simulated (videos/images) experiments. The present study investigated line-up accuracy approximately 1 week after a hostage simulation event. We administered biased line-up instructions to 50% of participants to investigate how this impacted choosing behaviour and accuracy. Based on 1030 line-up decisions (N = 122), we found that average accuracy was 38% in target present (TP) and 54% in target absent (TA) line-ups and that biased line-up instructions decreased overall accuracy (vs. unbiased). The hit rate for TP line-ups with biased instructions was 0.43 (unbiased instructions: 0.33), while the false alarm rate for TA line-ups with biased instructions was 0.60 (unbiased instructions: 0.32). We found that high confidence was associated with correct identifications and that shorter response times were indicative of correct rejections. Our findings demonstrate, in a more realistic scenario than the majority of eyewitness identification studies, the effect that biased line-up instructions lead to increased choosing and decreased accuracy.

在模拟逼真的暴力人质事件后,根据有偏见或无偏见的列队指示进行目击者指认
此前很少有研究调查在生态有效的环境下,高度紧张、逼真、暴力和威胁性场景对目击者识别准确性的影响。大多数研究都依赖于实验室模拟(视频/图像)实验。本研究调查了模拟人质事件发生约一周后的排队准确性。我们对 50% 的参与者进行了有偏差的排队指导,以调查这对选择行为和准确性的影响。根据 1030 次排队决定(N = 122),我们发现目标存在(TP)和目标不存在(TA)排队的平均准确率分别为 38% 和 54%,而有偏见的排队指示会降低总体准确率(与无偏见相比)。使用有偏差指令的 TP 排队的命中率为 0.43(使用无偏差指令的命中率为 0.33),而使用有偏差指令的 TA 排队的误报率为 0.60(使用无偏差指令的误报率为 0.32)。我们发现,高置信度与正确识别有关,而较短的反应时间则表明正确的拒绝。我们的研究结果表明,与大多数目击者身份识别研究相比,在更现实的情况下,有偏见的排队指示会导致选择性增加和准确性降低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
10.00%
发文量
26
期刊介绍: The Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling (JIP-OP) is an international journal of behavioural science contributions to criminal and civil investigations, for researchers and practitioners, also exploring the legal and jurisprudential implications of psychological and related aspects of all forms of investigation. Investigative Psychology is rapidly developing worldwide. It is a newly established, interdisciplinary area of research and application, concerned with the systematic, scientific examination of all those aspects of psychology and the related behavioural and social sciences that may be relevant to criminal.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信