Estimation of eyewitness error rates in fair and biased lineups.

IF 2.4 2区社会学 Q1 LAW

Law and Human Behavior Pub Date : 2023-08-01 DOI:10.1037/lhb0000538.supp

R. J. Fitzgerald, C. Tredoux, Stefana Juncu

{"title":"Estimation of eyewitness error rates in fair and biased lineups.","authors":"R. J. Fitzgerald, C. Tredoux, Stefana Juncu","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000538.supp","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVE\nThe risk of mistaken identification for innocent suspects in lineups can be estimated by correcting the overall error rate by the number of people in the lineup. We compared this nominal size correction to a new effective size correction, which adjusts the error rate for the number of plausible lineup members.\n\n\nHYPOTHESES\nWe hypothesized that (a) increasing lineup bias would increase misidentifications of a designated innocent suspect; (b) with the effective size correction, increasing lineup bias would also increase the estimate of innocent-suspect misidentifications; and (c) with the nominal size correction, lineup bias would have no effect on the estimate of innocent-suspect misidentifications.\n\n\nMETHOD\nIn a reanalysis of previous literature, we obtained 10 data sets from Open Science Framework. In three new experiments (Ns = 686, 405, and 1,531, respectively), participants observed a staged crime and completed a fair or biased lineup.\n\n\nRESULTS\nIn the reanalysis of previous literature, less than four of six lineup members were identified frequently enough to be classified as plausible, M = 3.78, 95% confidence interval [CI: 2.20, 5.36]. In the new experiments, increasing lineup bias increased mistaken identifications of a designated innocent suspect, odds ratio (OR) = 5.50, 95% CI [2.77, 10.95] and also increased the effective size-corrected estimate of innocent-suspect misidentifications, OR = 3.04, 95% CI [2.13, 4.33]. With the nominal size correction, lineup bias had no effect on the estimate of innocent-suspect misidentifications, OR = 0.84, 95% CI [0.60, 1.18].\n\n\nCONCLUSIONS\nMost lineups include a combination of plausible and implausible lineup members. Contrary to the nominal size correction, which ignores implausible lineup members, the effective size correction is sensitive to implausible lineup members and accounts for lineup bias when estimating the risk of innocent suspect misidentifications. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":"47 4 1","pages":"463-483"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-01","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/lhb0000538.supp","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 The risk of mistaken identification for innocent suspects in lineups can be estimated by correcting the overall error rate by the number of people in the lineup. We compared this nominal size correction to a new effective size correction, which adjusts the error rate for the number of plausible lineup members. HYPOTHESES We hypothesized that (a) increasing lineup bias would increase misidentifications of a designated innocent suspect; (b) with the effective size correction, increasing lineup bias would also increase the estimate of innocent-suspect misidentifications; and (c) with the nominal size correction, lineup bias would have no effect on the estimate of innocent-suspect misidentifications. METHOD In a reanalysis of previous literature, we obtained 10 data sets from Open Science Framework. In three new experiments (Ns = 686, 405, and 1,531, respectively), participants observed a staged crime and completed a fair or biased lineup. RESULTS In the reanalysis of previous literature, less than four of six lineup members were identified frequently enough to be classified as plausible, M = 3.78, 95% confidence interval [CI: 2.20, 5.36]. In the new experiments, increasing lineup bias increased mistaken identifications of a designated innocent suspect, odds ratio (OR) = 5.50, 95% CI [2.77, 10.95] and also increased the effective size-corrected estimate of innocent-suspect misidentifications, OR = 3.04, 95% CI [2.13, 4.33]. With the nominal size correction, lineup bias had no effect on the estimate of innocent-suspect misidentifications, OR = 0.84, 95% CI [0.60, 1.18]. CONCLUSIONS Most lineups include a combination of plausible and implausible lineup members. Contrary to the nominal size correction, which ignores implausible lineup members, the effective size correction is sensitive to implausible lineup members and accounts for lineup bias when estimating the risk of innocent suspect misidentifications. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

查看原文本刊更多论文

在公平和有偏见的阵容中估计目击者的错误率。

目的通过根据队列中的人数校正总体错误率，可以估计队列中无辜嫌疑人被错误识别的风险。我们将这种标称大小校正与新的有效大小校正进行了比较，该校正调整了合理阵容成员数量的错误率。假设我们假设（a）阵容偏见的增加会增加对指定无辜嫌疑人的误认；（b）在有效的尺寸校正下，增加阵容偏差也会增加对无辜嫌疑人误认的估计；以及（c）在标称大小校正的情况下，排列偏差不会对无辜嫌疑人误认的估计产生影响。方法在对以往文献的重新分析中，我们从开放科学框架中获得了10个数据集。在三个新的实验中（Ns分别为686、405和1531），参与者观察到了一个阶段性犯罪，并完成了一个公平或有偏见的阵容。结果在对先前文献的重新分析中，六个队列成员中只有不到四个被频繁地识别为可信，M=3.78，95%置信区间[CI:2.20，5.36]。在新的实验中，增加的队列偏倚增加了对指定无辜嫌疑人的错误识别，比值比（OR）=5.50，95%置信区间[2.77，10.95]，还增加了对无辜嫌疑人误认的有效大小校正估计值，OR=3.04，95%置信区间+2.13，4.33]。在标称大小校正的情况下，阵容偏差对无辜嫌疑人误认的估计值没有影响，OR=0.84，95%可信区间[0.60，1.18]。结论大多数阵容包括可信和不可信阵容成员的组合。与忽略不可信的阵容成员的名义规模修正相反，有效规模修正对不可信的队伍成员敏感，并在估计无辜嫌疑人误认的风险时考虑了阵容偏差。（PsycInfo数据库记录（c）2023 APA，保留所有权利）。

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

Law and Human Behavior Multiple-

CiteScore

4.50

自引率

8.00%

发文量

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.