바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

ACOMS+ 및 학술지 리포지터리 설명회

  • 한국과학기술정보연구원(KISTI) 서울분원 대회의실(별관 3층)
  • 2024년 07월 03일(수) 13:30
사전등록 바로가기
 

logo

ISSN : 1229-0653

논문 상세

이전
논문 투고

Vol.26 No.4
Citation Share

목격자의 범인식별 절차에서 식별 전 지시와 순차적 제시방식 유형에 따른 식별 정확성

Effects of Sequential Lineup Procedure Types and Lineup Instructions on Eyewitness Identification Accuracy

한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격 / Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, (P)1229-0653;
2012, v.26 no.4, pp.141-155
https://doi.org/10.21193/kjspp.2012.26.4.009
우소연 (한림대학교)
조은경 (한림대학교)
우소연, & 조은경. (2012). 목격자의 범인식별 절차에서 식별 전 지시와 순차적 제시방식 유형에 따른 식별 정확성. 한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격, 26(4), 141-155, https://doi.org/10.21193/kjspp.2012.26.4.009
  • 다운로드 수
  • 조회수
PDF 다운로드

초록

본 연구의 목적은 순차적 제시방식에서 식별률을 낮추는 요인들이 무엇인지 살펴보고, 이 요인들의 유무에 따라서 목격자의 식별 정확성에 차이가 나타나는지를 확인하고자 하였다. 아울러 식별절차를 수행하기 전 식별 전 지시에 따라서도 순차적 제시방식 유형의 식별 정확성에 차이가 나타나는지를 확인하고자 하였다. 본 연구의 실험은 피험자간 설계로 순차적 제시방식의 즉시 판단규칙과 정지 규칙의 유무, 식별 전 지시의 편향 지시와 비편향 지시, 사진열 중 실제 범인의 존재 여부에 따라서 조건별로 할당하였다. 실험 참가자들은 범죄 사건을 촬영한 동영상을 시청한 후 범인식별 절차를 거쳤다. 연구 결과는 사진열에 실제 범인이 존재하는 조건에서 즉시 판단을 하지 않고 정지규칙을 적용하지 않는 조건이 두 규칙을 적용한 다른 조건보다 더 높은 식별 정확성을 나타내었다. 실제 범인이 존재하지 않는 조건에서는 순차적 제시방식에 따른 식별 정확성의 차이가 없었다. 식별 전 지시에 따라 순차적 제시방식의 식별 정확성에는 차이가 없는 것으로 나타났다. 연구 결과를 바탕으로 본 연구는 높은 식별 정확성을 유지하면서 오기각률을 감소시킬 수 있는 대안적인 라인업의 필요성을 제언하였고, 연구의 의의와 목격자 식별 절차와 관련한 정책적 함의는 이후 논의하였다.

keywords
범인식별절차, 라인업, 사진제시, 목격자 식별, 식별 정확성, witness identification, lineup, photospread, identification accuracy

Abstract

Eyewitness testimony often plays an important role in criminal justice system. As evidenced by some documented cases of wrongful convictions based on eyewitness identification errors, there are a serious eyewitness identification problems that need to be corrected. Eyewitness may identify a culprit through a series of identification procedures, and most research has suggested that the sequential presentation of photospread that shows a witness limeup members at a time is a better method than simultaneous presentation of photospread in which all lineup members are presented at the same time. However, sequential lineup may tend to commit more false rejection errors in culprit present condition, whereas less false identification error in culprit absent condition. The purpose of this study is to clarify false rejection in sequential lineup procedure and to identify effects of the factors on witness identification accuracy. Also, we studied the effects of lineup instruction by sequential presentation type on witness identification accuracy. In this study 180 undergraduate students participated in a 3(types of sequential lineup: immediate decision with stopping rule, immediate decision without stopping rule, final decision without stopping rule)✕2(lineup instructions: biased, unbiased)✕2(culprit: present, absent) between subject experiment. The experiment procedure is that experimenter show a subject criminal video clip and ask the subject to perform identification procedure. The results of this study present that sequential procedure in which eyewitnesses are allowed to make a final decision without stopping rule could reduce false rejection errors,while maintaining high identification accuracy. Limitations and implications of this study were discussed.

keywords
범인식별절차, 라인업, 사진제시, 목격자 식별, 식별 정확성, witness identification, lineup, photospread, identification accuracy

참고문헌

1.

김지영, 김시업 (2006). 목격자 증언의 정확성 제고방안. 서울. 한국형사정책연구원.

2.

김지영, 김기범, 김시업 (2007). 복수면접에서 순차적 제시와 동시적 제시방법의 식별 정확성 비교 분석. 한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격, 21(2), 59-70.

3.

Innocence Project (2009). Reevaluating lineups: Why Witnesses Make Mistakes and How to Reduce the Chance of Misidentification. http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/Eyewitness-Misidentification.php, 2011년 05월 10일 검색.

4.

Clark, S. E. (2005). A re-examination of the effects of biased lineup instructions in eyewitness identification. Law and Human Behavior, 29(5), 575-604.

5.

Clark, S. E., & Godfrey, R. D. (2009). Eyewitness identification evidence and innocence risk. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16(1), 22-42.

6.

Cutler, B., & Penrod, S. (1988). Improving the reliability of eyewitness identification: Lineup construction and presentation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 281-290.

7.

Kassin, S. M., Ellsworth, P. C., & Smith, V. L. (1989). The “general acceptance” of psychological research on eyewitness testimony: A survey of the experts. American Psychologist, 44, 1098-1 098.

8.

Lindsay, R. C. L., & Wells, G. (1985). Improving eyewitness identifications from lineups: Simultaneous versus sequential lineup presentation. Journal of applied psychology, 70(3), 556-564.

9.

Lindsay, R. C. L., Lea, J., & Fulford, J. (1991). Sequential lineup presentation: Technique matters. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(6), 741-745.

10.

Lindsay, R. C. L., Lea, J., Nosworthy, G. J., Fulford, J. A., Hector, J., LeVan, V., & Seabrook, C. (1991). Biased lineups: Sequential presentation reduces the problem. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(6), 796-802.

11.

Lindsay, R. C. L., Pozzulo, J. D., Craig, W., Lee, K., & Corber, S. (1997). Simultaneous lineups, sequential lineups, and showups: Eyewitness identification decisions of adults and children. Law and Human Behavior, 21(4), 391-404.

12.

Lindsay, R. C. L., & Bellinger, K. (1999). Alternatives to the sequential lineup: The importanceof controlling the pictures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 315-321.

13.

Lindsay, R. C. L., Mansour, J. K., Beaudry, J. L., Leach, A. M., & Bertrand, M. I. (2009). Sequential lineup presentation: Patterns and policy. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 14, 13-24.

14.

Malpass, R. S., & Devine, P. G. (1981). Eyewitness identification: Lineup instructions and the absence of the offender. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 482-489.

15.

Malpass, R. S., Tredoux, C. G., & McQuiston-Surrett, D. (2009). Public policy and sequential lineups. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 14, 1-12.

16.

McQuiston-Surrett, D., & Malpass, R. S. (2006). Sequential vs. simultaneous lineups: A review of methods, data, and theory. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 12(2), 137-169.

17.

Meissner, C. A., Tredoux, C. G., Parker, J. F., & MacLin, O. H. (2005). Eyewitness decisions in simultaneous and sequential lineups: A dualprocess signal detection theory analysis. Memory and Cognition, 33(5), 783-792.

18.

Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81-97.

19.

Pozzulo, J. D., & Dempsey, J. (2006). Biased lineup instructions: Examining the effect of pressure on children’s and adults’ eyewitness identification accuracy. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36(6), 1381-1394.

20.

Steblay, N. (1997). Social influence in eyewitness recall: A meta-analytic review of lineup instruction effect. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 283-279.

21.

Steblay, N., Dysart, J. E., Fulero, S., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (2001). Eyewitness accuracy rates in sequential and simultaneous line-up presentations: A meta-analytic comparison. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 459-473.

22.

Steblay, N., Dysart, J. E., & Wells, G. L. (2011). Seventy-two tests of the sequential lineup superiority effect: A meta-analysis and policy discussion. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 17(1), 99-139.

23.

Wells, G. L. (1978). Applied eyewitness-testimony research: System variables and estimator variables. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 12, 1546-1557.

24.

Wells, G. L., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (1980). Improving eyewitness identification from lineups: Simultaneous versus sequential lineup presentation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70(3), 556-564.

25.

Wells, G. L. (1984). The psychology of lineup identification. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 14(2), 89-103.

26.

Wells, G. L., Small, M., Penrod, S., Malpass, R. S., Fulero, S. M., & Brimacombe, C. A. E. (1998). Eyewitness identification procedures: Recommendations for lineups and photospreads. Law and Human Behavior, 22(6), 1-39.

한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격

논문 투고 OA 정책