Exactitud en la identificación de caras y tiempo de respuesta

  1. Manzanero Puebla, Antonio Lucas
  2. Farias Pajak, Kelena
  3. Igual Garrido, Carlos
  4. Quintana, José M.
Zeitschrift:
Anuario de psicología jurídica

ISSN: 1133-0740

Datum der Publikation: 2011

Nummer: 21

Seiten: 107-113

Art: Artikel

DOI: 10.5093/JR2011V21A10 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen Access editor

Andere Publikationen in: Anuario de psicología jurídica

Zusammenfassung

The aim of this project was to examine the relationship between the accuracy in the identification of persons and the response time, by means of two experiments. In the experiment 1 the subjects were presented a photographic image of an unknown person and then they were asked to perform a distracting task. Subsequently they tried to identify the target person in a new photography placed among a set of five images of persons of a similar appearance. The results showed that there is a large variability in the response time between correct identifications and false alarms. In the experiment 2 the subjects were asked to identify the target person in a forced choice assignment. In this test significant differences in the response time were found in relation to the right answer. The subjects that gave correct responses took less time in answering than the subjects that gave false alarms by choosing one of the foils in the lineup. In most cases the response time was higher than the 10-12 sec proposed by Dunning and Perretta (2002) as the time limit needed to predict the correct identifications. The results will be examined considering the possible implications regarding the evaluation of the eyewitnesses´ exactitude in the suspects´ recognition assignments.

Bibliographische Referenzen

  • Brewer, N. (2006). Uses and abuses of eyewitness identification confidence. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 11, 3-23.
  • Brewer, N., Caon, A., Todd, C. y Weber, N. (2006). Eyewitness identification accuracy and response latency. Law and Human Behavior, 30, 31-50.
  • Brewer, N. y Wells, G. L. (2006). The confidenceaccuracy relationship in eyewitness identification: Effects of lineup instructions, foil similarity, and target-absent base rates. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 12, 11-30.
  • Bothwell, R. K.; Deffenbacher, A. y Brigham, J. C. (1987). Correlation of eyewitness accuracy and confidence: Optimality hypothesis revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 691-695.
  • Dunning, D. y Perretta, S. (2002). Automaticity and eyewitness accuracy: A 10to 12second rule for distinguishing accurate from inaccurate positive identifications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 951-962.
  • Dunning, D. y Stern, L. (1994). Distinguishing accurate from inaccurate eyewitness identificacions via inquiries about decision processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 818-835.
  • Horry, R., Wright, D. B. y Tredoux C. G. (2010). Recognition and context memory for faces from own and other ethnic groups: A remember-know investigation. Memory and Cognition, 38, 134141.
  • Kneller, W., Memon, A. y Stevenage, S. (2001). Simultaneous and sequential lineups: Decision processes of accurate and inaccurate eyewitnesses. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 15, 659-671.
  • Luna, K. y Martín-Luengo, B. (2010). New advances in the study of the confidence-accuracy relationship in the memory for events. The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 2, 55-71.
  • Manzanero, A. L. (2006a). Procesos automáticos y controlados de memoria: Modelo Asociativo (HAM) vs. Sistema de Procesamiento General Abstracto. Revista de Psicología General y Aplicada, 59, 373-412.
  • Manzanero, A. L. (2006b). Las experiencias de recuperación como medida de memoria. Boletín de Psicología, 87, 89-105.
  • Manzanero, A. L. (2010). Memoria de testigos. Obtención y valoración de la prueba testifical. Madrid: Pirámide.
  • Manzanero, A. L., López, B. y Contreras, M. J. (2011). Retrieval experience as an accurate indicator of person identification line-ups. The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 3, 129-140.
  • Robinson, M., Johnson, J. y Herndon, F. (1997). Reaction time and assessments of cognitive effort as predictors of eyewitness memory accuracy and confidence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 416-425.
  • Ross, D., Benton, T., McDonnell, S., Metzger, R. y Silver, C. (2007). When accurate and inaccurate eyewitnesses look the same: A limitation of the “Pop-Out” effect and the 10-12 second rule. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 677-690.
  • Sauerland, M. y Sporer, S. L. (2009). Fast and Confident: postdicting eyewitness identification accuracy in a field study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 15, 46-62.
  • Smith, S. M., Lindsay, R. C. L. y Pryke, S. (2000). Postdictors of eyewitness errors: Can false identifications be diagnosed? Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 542-550.
  • Sporer, S. L. (1992). Post-dicting eyewitness accuracy: confidence, decision-times and person descriptions of choosers and non-choosers. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 157-180.
  • Sporer, S. L. (1993). Eyewitness identification accuracy, confidence, and decision times in simultaneous and sequential lineups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 22-33.
  • Weber, N., Brewer, N., Wells, G., Semmler, C. y Keast, A. (2004). Eyewitness identification accuracy and response latency: The unruly 10-12 second rule. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 10, 139-147.
  • Wells, G. L., Memon, A. y Penrod, S. D., (2006). Eyewitness evidence: Improving its probative value. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7, 45-75.
  • Wells, G. L., Small, M., Penrod, S. D., Malpass, R. S., Fulero, S. M. y Brimacombe, C. A. E. (1998). Eyewitness identification procedures: Recommendations for lineups and photospreads. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 603.647.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet