Department of Psychology.
Law Hum Behav. 2022 Feb;46(1):30-44. doi: 10.1037/lhb0000476. Epub 2021 Dec 30.
We examined whether variations in the strength of the evidentiary connection between a suspect and the crime under investigation affected officers' decisions to place suspects into an identification procedure and whether education about the problems associated with base-rate neglect sensitized officers to variations in evidentiary connection.
Police officers ( = 279; age range = 24-70; 86% male) read a hypothetical crime scenario, adopting the role of the lead investigator. The scenarios varied in how closely the suspect was connected to the crime (evidentiary connection: weak vs. strong). Before reading the crime scenarios, half of the participants received education about the relationship between the base rate of guilt among suspects placed in lineups and the prevalence of mistaken identifications (education: present vs. absent). Officers indicated whether they would conduct an identification procedure with a witness based on the evidence they currently had against the suspect.
We expected that participants would better distinguish between the strong and weak evidentiary connection conditions when education was present than when it was absent.
Education did not sensitize officers to the strength of the evidence connecting the suspect to the crime under investigation, but officers were sensitive to variations in evidentiary connection without benefit of the educational intervention. However, a majority of officers were willing to subject a suspect to an identification procedure even when there was no evidence connecting the suspect to the crime.
Officers' decisions about placing suspects in lineups reflect some level of base-rate neglect that remained even after education about the importance of increasing the ratio of culprit-present to culprit-absent lineups for decreasing mistaken identifications. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).
我们考察了在调查犯罪时，嫌疑人与犯罪之间证据关联的强弱变化是否会影响警察决定将嫌疑人纳入识别程序，以及关于基率忽略相关问题的教育是否会使警察对证据关联的变化更加敏感。
警察（n = 279；年龄范围 24-70 岁；86%为男性）阅读了一个假设的犯罪场景，扮演首席调查员的角色。这些场景在嫌疑人与犯罪的关联程度上存在差异（证据关联：弱 vs. 强）。在阅读犯罪场景之前，一半的参与者接受了关于在列队中放置嫌疑人的有罪率与错误识别率之间关系的教育（教育：存在 vs. 不存在）。警察根据他们目前对嫌疑人的证据，表明他们是否会根据证据对证人进行识别程序。
我们预计，当存在教育时，参与者将能够更好地区分强和弱的证据关联条件，而当不存在教育时则不能。
教育并没有使警察对与调查犯罪相关的证据的强弱变化更加敏感，但即使没有教育干预，警察也对证据关联的变化很敏感。然而，大多数警察仍然愿意让嫌疑人接受识别程序，即使没有证据将嫌疑人与犯罪联系起来。
警察关于将嫌疑人纳入列队的决定反映了一定程度的基率忽略，即使在接受了关于增加犯罪者在场与不在场的列队比例以减少错误识别的重要性的教育后，这种忽略仍然存在。
