Maastricht University, Department of Clinical Psychological Science, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
University of Portsmouth, Department of Psychology, Portsmouth, United Kingdom.
PLoS One. 2018 Dec 6;13(12):e0208403. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0208403. eCollection 2018.
Research in perception and recognition demonstrates that a current decision (i) can be influenced by previous ones (i-j), meaning that subsequent responses are not always independent. Experiments 1 and 2 tested whether initial showup identification decisions impact choosing behavior for subsequent showup identification responses. Participants watched a mock crime film involving three perpetrators and later made three showup identification decisions, one showup for each perpetrator. Across both experiments, evidence for sequential dependencies for choosing behavior was not consistently predictable. In Experiment 1, responses on the third, target-present showup assimilated towards previous choosing. In Experiment 2, responses on the second showup contrasted previous choosing regardless of target-presence. Experiment 3 examined whether differences in number of test trials in the eyewitness (vs. basic recognition) paradigm could account for the absence of hypothesized ability to predict patterns of sequential dependencies in Experiments 1 and 2. Sequential dependencies were detected in recognition decisions over many trials, including recognition for faces: the probability of a yes response on the current trial increased if the previous response was also yes (vs. no). However, choosing behavior on previous trials did not predict individual recognition decisions on the current trial. Thus, while sequential dependencies did arise to some extent, results suggest that the integrity of identification and recognition decisions are not likely to be impacted by making multiple decisions in a row.
研究表明，当前的决策（i）会受到先前决策（i-j）的影响，这意味着后续的反应并不总是独立的。实验 1 和实验 2 检验了最初的目击辨认决策是否会影响后续目击辨认反应的选择行为。参与者观看了一段模拟犯罪电影，其中涉及三名罪犯，之后他们做出了三次目击辨认决策，每个罪犯一次。在这两个实验中，选择行为的顺序依赖关系的证据并不总是可预测的。在实验 1 中，第三个出现的目标出现的目击辨认反应向之前的选择同化。在实验 2 中，无论目标是否存在，第二个目击辨认反应都与之前的选择形成对比。实验 3 检验了目击证人（与基本识别）范式中测试试验次数的差异是否可以解释在实验 1 和实验 2 中未能预测顺序依赖关系模式的假设能力。在多次试验中，包括对人脸的识别决策中，都检测到了顺序依赖关系：如果当前试验的前一个反应也是“是”（而不是“否”），则当前试验中“是”的反应概率会增加。然而，前几次试验的选择行为并不能预测当前试验的个体识别决策。因此，虽然顺序依赖关系在某种程度上确实存在，但结果表明，连续做出多个决策不太可能影响身份识别和识别决策的完整性。
