The effect of evidence type, identification accuracy, line‐up presentation, and line‐up administration on observers' perceptions of eyewitnesses
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose People tend to believe eyewitness testimony and have difficulty assessing the accuracy of eyewitness identifications. This study examines observers' perceptions of eyewitness identifications made under various line‐up presentation and administration conditions. We also investigate whether observers' ability to discriminate between accurate and inaccurate identifications is enhanced by viewing video‐recorded identification decisions rather than eyewitness testimony. Methods Each participant ( N = 432) viewed a video of an accurate or inaccurate eyewitness providing testimony and/or making an identification decision. Identifications were obtained from simultaneous or sequential line‐ups conducted under double‐blind, single‐blind, or post‐identification feedback administration conditions. Results Exposure to eyewitness testimony was associated with a bias to believe the evidence; exposure to the identification decision eliminated the response bias, however, it did not improve observer sensitivity to identification accuracy. Viewing the identification decision resulted in greater belief of accurate than inaccurate identifications when eyewitnesses chose from simultaneous – but not sequential – line‐ups. Regardless of evidence type or identification accuracy, observers were more likely to believe eyewitnesses who received confirmatory post‐identification feedback compared to the non‐feedback conditions. Conclusions Presenting a video record of the identification decision neither improved observers' ability to discriminate between accurate and inaccurate eyewitness identifications nor reduced belief of identifications obtained from suggestive procedures. Further research is warranted before presenting video‐recorded identification procedures in court.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it