Mansour Jamal K, Beaudry Jennifer L, Kalmet Natalie, Bertrand Michelle I, Lindsay R C L
Memory Research Group, Centre for Applied Social Sciences, Psychology & Sociology, Queen Margaret University.
Department of Psychological Sciences, Centre for Forensic Behavioural Science, Swinburne University of Technology.
Law Hum Behav. 2017 Feb;41(1):103-115. doi: 10.1037/lhb0000203. Epub 2016 Sep 29.
Triers of fact sometimes consider lineup fairness when determining the suggestiveness of an identification procedure. Likewise, researchers often consider lineup fairness when comparing results across studies. Despite their importance, lineup fairness measures have received scant empirical attention and researchers inconsistently conduct and report mock-witness tasks and lineup fairness measures. We conducted a large-scale, online experiment (N = 1,010) to examine how lineup fairness measures varied with mock-witness task methodologies as well as to explore the validity and reliability of the measures. In comparison to descriptions compiled from multiple witnesses, when individual descriptions were presented in the mock-witness task, lineup fairness measures indicated a higher number of plausible lineup members but more bias toward the suspect. Target-absent lineups were consistently estimated to be fairer than target-present lineups-which is problematic because it suggests that lineups containing innocent suspects are less likely to be challenged in court than lineups containing guilty suspects. Correlations within lineup size measures and within some lineup bias measures indicated convergent validity and the correlations across the lineup size and lineup bias measures demonstrated discriminant validity. The reliability of lineup fairness measures across different descriptions was low and reliability across different sets of mock witnesses was moderate to high, depending on the measure. Researchers reporting lineup fairness measures should specify the type of description presented, the amount of detail in the description, and whether the mock witnesses viewed target-present and/or -absent lineups. (PsycINFO Database Record
事实认定者在确定辨认程序的暗示性时，有时会考虑列队辨认的公平性。同样，研究人员在比较不同研究的结果时，也经常会考虑列队辨认的公平性。尽管列队辨认公平性措施很重要，但它们很少受到实证关注，而且研究人员在进行和报告模拟证人任务及列队辨认公平性措施时也不一致。我们进行了一项大规模的在线实验（N = 1,010），以研究列队辨认公平性措施如何随模拟证人任务方法而变化，并探讨这些措施的有效性和可靠性。与从多个证人那里汇编的描述相比，当在模拟证人任务中呈现个体描述时，列队辨认公平性措施表明有更多看似合理的列队成员，但对嫌疑人的偏见更大。始终估计没有目标的列队比有目标的列队更公平——这是有问题的，因为这表明包含无辜嫌疑人的列队在法庭上受到质疑的可能性低于包含有罪嫌疑人的列队。列队规模措施内部以及一些列队偏见措施内部的相关性表明了收敛效度，列队规模和列队偏见措施之间的相关性表明了区分效度。不同描述下的列队辨认公平性措施的可靠性较低，不同组模拟证人下的可靠性则根据措施不同而从中度到高度不等。报告列队辨认公平性措施的研究人员应指明所呈现描述的类型、描述中的细节量，以及模拟证人是否观看了有目标和/或无目标的列队。（PsycINFO数据库记录）
