Evaluating the impact of first-yes-counts instructions on eyewitness performance using the two-high threshold eyewitness identification model

Author:

Winter KristinaORCID,Menne Nicola MarieORCID,Bell RaoulORCID,Buchner AxelORCID

Abstract

AbstractIn eyewitness research, multiple identification decisions in sequential lineups are typically prevented by telling participants that only their first identification decision counts. These first-yes-counts instructions are incompatible with standard police protocols prescribing that witnesses shall see the entire lineup. Horry et al. were the first to experimentally test how this discrepancy between eyewitness research and standard police protocols affects eyewitness identification decisions. Here, the two-high threshold eyewitness identification model was used to disentangle the effect of the first-yes-counts instructions on the detection and guessing processes underlying eyewitness identification decisions. We report both a reanalysis of Horry et al.’s data and a conceptual replication. Both the reanalysis and the results of the conceptual replication confirm that first-yes-counts instructions do not affect the detection of the culprit but decrease the probability of guessing-based selections. To improve the ecological validity, research on sequential lineups should avoid first-yes-counts instructions.

Funder

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft

Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Subject

Multidisciplinary

Reference48 articles.

1. Wells, G. L. et al. Eyewitness identification procedures: recommendations for lineups and photospreads. Law Hum Behav. 22, 603–647. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025750605807 (1998).

2. German Federal Ministry of the Interior and Community. Richtlinien für das Strafverfahren und das Bußgeldverfahren (RiStBV) [Guidelines for criminal proceedings and summary proceedings], https://www.verwaltungsvorschriften-im-internet.de/bsvwvbund_01011977_420821R5902002.htm (2021).

3. Horry, R., Memon, A., Wright, D. B. & Milne, R. Predictors of eyewitness identification decisions from video lineups in England: a field study. Law Hum Behav. 36, 257–265. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093959 (2012).

4. Bill Blackwood Law Enforcement Management Institute of Texas. Model Policy on Eyewitness Identification, http://www.lemitonline.org/resources/documents/ewid_final.pdf (2022).

5. Wells, G. L., Steblay, N. K. & Dysart, J. E. Double-blind photo lineups using actual eyewitnesses: an experimental test of a sequential versus simultaneous lineup procedure. Law Human Behav. 39, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000096 (2015).

Cited by 4 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3