Artificial Intelligence-based investigation of filler selection strategies.

IF 3.2 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW
Dilhan Töredi,Steven D Penrod
{"title":"Artificial Intelligence-based investigation of filler selection strategies.","authors":"Dilhan Töredi,Steven D Penrod","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000650","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVE\r\nLineup construction relies on matching fillers to the suspect's appearance or to the eyewitness's description of the perpetrator (match to description, MTD). Recent work shows that low (vs. high)-similarity fillers beyond MTD improve discriminability. We tested lineups constructed with differing suspect-filler (SF) similarity levels beyond MTD (low, moderate, high) against MTD only, varying exposure duration, culprit race, and innocent suspect-culprit resemblance (guilty-innocent [GI] similarity).\r\n\r\nHYPOTHESES\r\nWe expected the highest discriminability for low-SF similarity lineups, moderate next, MTD-only lower, and high lowest-alongside higher discriminability for long (cf. short) exposures, same-race (cf. cross-race) culprits, and low GI similarity (cf. high). We expected high-SF similarity to better protect high GI similarity innocents and low F-similarity to aid culprit identifications regardless of GI similarity. We also anticipated stronger benefits of low-SF similarity lineups for cross-race culprits and shorter exposures.\r\n\r\nMETHOD\r\nAll lineups, except MTD only, were constructed using an artificial intelligence-driven, objective, and reproducible measure and varied by SF similarity. Participants (N = 2,644) recruited via Prolific watched four short or long videos (half with White, half with African American culprits), completed a distractor task, and made lineup identifications (culprit-present or culprit-absent) with confidence ratings.\r\n\r\nRESULTS\r\nBoth low- and high-SF similarity lineups produced higher discriminability than MTD-only lineups. While low-SF similarity lineups enhanced guilty suspect detection, high-SF similarity lineups better protected innocent suspects. Furthermore, low-SF similarity lineups yielded the best identification accuracy, and high-SF similarity lineups yielded the best diagnosticity ratio. No interactions emerged.\r\n\r\nCONCLUSIONS\r\nUsing match-to-suspect beyond MTD-especially at the highest or lowest SF similarity-improves lineup performance regardless of factors outside the justice system's control. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":"222 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-01-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law and Human Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000650","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

OBJECTIVE Lineup construction relies on matching fillers to the suspect's appearance or to the eyewitness's description of the perpetrator (match to description, MTD). Recent work shows that low (vs. high)-similarity fillers beyond MTD improve discriminability. We tested lineups constructed with differing suspect-filler (SF) similarity levels beyond MTD (low, moderate, high) against MTD only, varying exposure duration, culprit race, and innocent suspect-culprit resemblance (guilty-innocent [GI] similarity). HYPOTHESES We expected the highest discriminability for low-SF similarity lineups, moderate next, MTD-only lower, and high lowest-alongside higher discriminability for long (cf. short) exposures, same-race (cf. cross-race) culprits, and low GI similarity (cf. high). We expected high-SF similarity to better protect high GI similarity innocents and low F-similarity to aid culprit identifications regardless of GI similarity. We also anticipated stronger benefits of low-SF similarity lineups for cross-race culprits and shorter exposures. METHOD All lineups, except MTD only, were constructed using an artificial intelligence-driven, objective, and reproducible measure and varied by SF similarity. Participants (N = 2,644) recruited via Prolific watched four short or long videos (half with White, half with African American culprits), completed a distractor task, and made lineup identifications (culprit-present or culprit-absent) with confidence ratings. RESULTS Both low- and high-SF similarity lineups produced higher discriminability than MTD-only lineups. While low-SF similarity lineups enhanced guilty suspect detection, high-SF similarity lineups better protected innocent suspects. Furthermore, low-SF similarity lineups yielded the best identification accuracy, and high-SF similarity lineups yielded the best diagnosticity ratio. No interactions emerged. CONCLUSIONS Using match-to-suspect beyond MTD-especially at the highest or lowest SF similarity-improves lineup performance regardless of factors outside the justice system's control. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).
基于人工智能的填料选择策略研究。
目的:阵容的构建依赖于匹配的填充物与嫌疑人的外表或目击者对犯罪者的描述(匹配描述,MTD)。最近的研究表明,在MTD之外的低相似性(相对于高相似性)填料提高了可判别性。我们测试了由不同的嫌疑人-填充物(SF)相似性水平(低、中、高)与MTD、不同的暴露时间、罪犯种族和无辜的嫌疑人-罪犯相似性(有罪-无辜[GI]相似性)组成的阵容。假设:我们预期低GI相似性组的可判别性最高,其次为中等,mtd仅较低,最低高,同时长(短)暴露、同种族(跨种族)罪魁分子和低GI相似性组的可判别性更高(高)。我们期望高sf相似度可以更好地保护高GI相似度的无辜者,而低f相似度可以帮助识别与GI相似度无关的罪魁祸首。我们还预计低sf相似性阵容对跨种族罪魁祸首和较短的暴露有更强的益处。方法除MTD外,所有队列均采用人工智能驱动的、客观的、可重复的测量方法构建,并根据SF相似性进行变化。参与者(N = 2644)通过多产的方式被招募,他们观看了四段短视频或长视频(一半是白人,一半是非裔美国人),完成了一项分散注意力的任务,并进行了阵容识别(罪犯在场或不在场),并进行了信心评级。结果低sf相似性和高sf相似性组合均比仅mtd相似性组合具有更高的辨别能力。虽然低sf相似度的排列增强了犯罪嫌疑人的检测,但高sf相似度的排列更好地保护了无辜的嫌疑人。此外,低sf相似度组合的鉴定准确率最高,高sf相似度组合的诊断准确率最高。没有出现任何互动。结论在mtd之外,特别是在SF相似性最高或最低的情况下,使用匹配-嫌疑人可以提高阵容的表现,而不受司法系统控制的因素的影响。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c) 2026 APA,版权所有)。
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
4.50
自引率
8.00%
发文量
42
期刊介绍: Law and Human Behavior, the official journal of the American Psychology-Law Society/Division 41 of the American Psychological Association, is a multidisciplinary forum for the publication of articles and discussions of issues arising out of the relationships between human behavior and the law, our legal system, and the legal process. This journal publishes original research, reviews of past research, and theoretical studies from professionals in criminal justice, law, psychology, sociology, psychiatry, political science, education, communication, and other areas germane to the field.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书