Dokument: Effects of lineup size and pre-lineup instructions, crime-lineup delays and culprit descriptions on the cognitive processes underlying eyewitness responses to lineups
| Titel: | Effects of lineup size and pre-lineup instructions, crime-lineup delays and culprit descriptions on the cognitive processes underlying eyewitness responses to lineups | |||||||
| URL für Lesezeichen: | https://docserv.uni-duesseldorf.de/servlets/DocumentServlet?id=70358 | |||||||
| URN (NBN): | urn:nbn:de:hbz:061-20250730-131719-4 | |||||||
| Kollektion: | Dissertationen | |||||||
| Sprache: | Englisch | |||||||
| Dokumententyp: | Wissenschaftliche Abschlussarbeiten » Dissertation | |||||||
| Medientyp: | Text | |||||||
| Autor: | Therre, Amelie Frederike [Autor] | |||||||
| Dateien: |
| |||||||
| Beitragende: | Prof. Dr. Buchner, Axel [Gutachter] Bell, Raoul [Gutachter] | |||||||
| Dewey Dezimal-Klassifikation: | 100 Philosophie und Psychologie » 150 Psychologie | |||||||
| Beschreibung: | Eyewitness testimonies obtained through lineups can provide valuable evidence in criminal prosecutions. However, they also present legal professionals—including investigating officers, attorneys, judges and jurors—with a fundamental dilemma: while correct culprit identifications can support legitimate convictions and are therefore desirable, false identifications of innocent suspects may contribute to wrongful convictions and should therefore be avoided. However, despite an extensive body of research, many forensically relevant factors that influence eyewitness responses to lineups and the cognitive processes underlying them remain insufficiently understood. In this dissertation, the well-validated two-high threshold eyewitness identification model was used to examine several of these factors. In Experiments 1a and 1b, the combined effects of lineup size and pre-lineup instructions were investigated. It was demonstrated in both experiments that the probability of culprit-presence detection was higher in three-person lineups than in six-person lineups. Furthermore, the probability of guessing-based selection was lower when pre-lineup instructions suggesting a low probability of culprit presence than when neutral pre-lineup instructions not implying a low probability of culprit presence were provided. Ultimately, culprit identification rates were higher in three-person lineups combined with instructions suggesting a low probability of culprit presence compared to six-person lineups with neutral instructions, while the innocent-suspect-identification rates were statistically indistinguishable. In Experiment 2, the effect of varying delays between the crime and the associated lineup was examined. The probability of culprit-presence detection decreased progressively across four time points (no delay, one day, one week and one month), with the decline best described by a power function. Notably, the probability of guessing-based selection remained stable, indicating that eyewitnesses did not compensate for declining culprit-presence detection by increasing their tendency to guess. In Experiment 3, the effect of providing culprit descriptions prior to the lineups was investigated. Both the probability of culprit-presence detection and the probability of guessing-based selection were significantly lower when culprit descriptions were provided compared to when no descriptions were provided. Together, these findings underscore the utility of the two-high threshold eyewitness identification model for addressing applied legal questions. This dissertation contributes to the field by offering new insights into how several forensically relevant factors influence the cognitive processes underlying eyewitness responses to lineups. | |||||||
| Lizenz: |  Dieses Werk ist lizenziert unter einer Creative Commons Namensnennung 4.0 International Lizenz | |||||||
| Fachbereich / Einrichtung: | Mathematisch- Naturwissenschaftliche Fakultät » WE Psychologie » Allgemeine Psychologie und Arbeitspsychologie | |||||||
| Dokument erstellt am: | 30.07.2025 | |||||||
| Dateien geändert am: | 30.07.2025 | |||||||
| Promotionsantrag am: | 22.05.2025 | |||||||
| Datum der Promotion: | 25.07.2025 |
