Section Forensic Psychology, Department of Clinical Psychological Science, Faculty of Psychology and Neuroscience, Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Department of Clinical Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Psychol Res. 2019 Sep;83(6):1210-1222. doi: 10.1007/s00426-017-0948-5. Epub 2017 Nov 27.
Direct eyewitness identification is widely used, but prone to error. We tested the validity of indirect eyewitness identification decisions using the reaction time-based concealed information test (CIT) for assessing cooperative eyewitnesses' face memory as an alternative to traditional lineup procedures. In a series of five experiments, a total of 401 mock eyewitnesses watched one of 11 different stimulus events that depicted a breach of law. Eyewitness identifications in the CIT were derived from longer reaction times as compared to well-matched foil faces not encountered before. Across the five experiments, the weighted mean effect size d was 0.14 (95% CI 0.08-0.19). The reaction time-based CIT seems unsuited for testing cooperative eyewitnesses' memory for faces. The careful matching of the faces required for a fair lineup or the lack of intent to deceive may have hampered the diagnosticity of the reaction time-based CIT.
直接目击证人辨认被广泛应用,但容易出错。我们使用基于反应时的隐藏信息测试(CIT)来测试间接目击证人辨认决策的有效性,该测试用于评估合作目击证人的面部记忆,作为传统列队程序的替代方法。在一系列五个实验中,共有 401 名模拟目击证人观看了 11 个不同的刺激事件中的一个,这些事件描绘了违法行为。与之前未遇到的匹配良好的箔面相比,CIT 中的目击证人识别的反应时间更长。在这五个实验中,加权平均效应大小 d 为 0.14(95%置信区间 0.08-0.19)。基于反应时的 CIT 似乎不适合测试合作目击证人的面部记忆。为了进行公平的列队或缺乏欺骗意图,可能需要对人脸进行仔细匹配,这可能会妨碍基于反应时的 CIT 的诊断能力。