Improving Eyewitness Identification Accuracy with a Modified Lineup Procedure
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The purpose of the current program of research was to examine whether a modified lineup procedure would increase identification accuracy. Study 1 (N = 241) examined several lineup procedures including the simultaneous, sequential, and elimination lineup along with a new procedure known as the elimination-plus. The elimination-plus lineup had participants provide a confidence measure following their first decision. In target-present lineups, the elimination-plus procedure was the only procedure to significantly predict accuracy. Judgment one confidence significantly predicted identification accuracy; once a witness was 75% or more confident in his or her decision, making a correct decision rose above chance level. Similar results were found for judgment two such that once a witness was 75% or more confident, making a correct decision rose above chance level. Given that there are two confidence ratings in the elimination-plus procedure, the two ratings were averaged to determine whether it was predictive of accuracy. Similar to the confidence obtained at judgment one and judgment two, once a witness had an average of 75% confidence, making a correct decision rose above chance level. Study 2 (N = 120) examined whether modifications to the existing elimination lineup procedure instructions would increase the rate of correct identification in target-present lineups. No significant differences were found; however, participants’ decision criteria became more conservative such that both the rate of correct identification in target-present lineups and the rate of false positive identifications in target-absent lineups increased. Study 3 (N = 240) examined whether adding a salient rejection option to judgment two of the elimination lineup procedure would increase identification accuracy. Contrary to prediction, the salient rejection option was detrimental to identification accuracy in target-present lineups with no benefit to target-absent decisions. Overall, results suggest that adding in confidence following judgment one of the elimination lineup procedure is a beneficial modification as it provides another piece of evidence as to the guilt of the suspect. Given that confidence has been recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States in Neil v. Biggers (1972), these results shed light on a novel way of examining identification accuracy.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,007 | 0,003 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».