Abstract：
When presented with a lineup, the witness is tasked with identifying the culprit or indicating that the culprit is not present. The witness then qualifies the decision with a confidence judgment. But how do witnesses go about making these decisions and judgments? According to absolute-judgment models, witnesses determine which lineup member provides the strongest match to memory and base their identification decision and confidence judgment on the absolute strength of this MAX lineup member. Conversely, relative-judgment models propose that witnesses determine which lineup member provides the strongest match to memory and then base their identification decision and confidence judgment on the relative strength of the MAX lineup member compared to the remaining lineup members. We took a critical test approach to test the predictions of both models. As predicted by the absolute-judgment model, but contrary to the predictions of the relative-judgment model, witnesses were more likely to correctly reject low-similarity lineups than high-similarity lineups (Experiment 1), and more likely to reject biased lineups than fair lineups (Experiment 2). Likewise, witnesses rejected low-similarity lineups with greater confidence than high-similarity lineups (Experiment 1) and rejected biased lineups with greater confidence than fair lineups (Experiment 2). Only a single pattern was consistent with the relative model and inconsistent with the absolute model: suspect identifications from biased lineups were made with greater confidence than suspect identifications from fair lineups (Experiment 2). The results suggest that absolute-judgment models better predict witness decision-making than do relative-judgment models and that pure relative-judgment models are unviable.
摘要：
当展示阵容时，证人的任务是指认罪犯或表明罪犯不在场。然后，证人对该决定进行信心判断。但是证人如何做出这些决定和判断？根据绝对判断模型，目击者确定哪个阵容成员提供了最强的记忆匹配，并根据这个MAX阵容成员的绝对实力确定他们的身份决定和信心判断。相反，相对判断模型建议证人确定哪个阵容成员提供了最强的匹配记忆，然后将他们的身份决定和信心判断基于MAX阵容成员相对于其余阵容成员的相对强度。我们采取了一种关键的测试方法来测试这两个模型的预测。正如绝对判断模型所预测的那样，但与相对判断模型的预测相反，证人更有可能正确地拒绝低相似性阵容比高相似性阵容（实验1），与公平阵容相比，更有可能拒绝有偏见的阵容（实验2）。同样，证人拒绝低相似性阵容的信心高于高相似性阵容（实验1），拒绝偏见阵容的信心高于公平阵容（实验2）。只有一个模式与相对模型一致，而与绝对模型不一致：来自偏倚阵容的可疑识别比来自公平阵容的可疑识别具有更大的置信度（实验2）。结果表明，绝对判断模型比相对判断模型更好地预测证人决策，而纯粹的相对判断模型是不可行的。
