Department of Experimental Psychology, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, 40204, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Sci Rep. 2023 Apr 21;13(1):6572. doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-33424-4.
In 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.
在目击证人研究中，通常通过告知参与者他们的第一个识别决定才是唯一有效的，来防止他们在连续列队中做出多个识别决定。这些第一选择计数的指令与标准警察规程相冲突，因为标准警察规程规定证人应看到整个列队。Horry 等人是第一个通过实验检验目击证人研究与标准警察规程之间的这种差异如何影响目击证人的识别决定的。在这里，使用了双高阈值目击证人识别模型来区分第一选择计数指令对目击证人识别决定所基于的检测和猜测过程的影响。我们报告了对 Horry 等人数据的重新分析和概念复制。重新分析和概念复制的结果都证实，第一选择计数的指令不会影响对犯罪人的检测，但会降低基于猜测的选择的概率。为了提高生态有效性，对连续列队的研究应避免第一选择计数的指令。
