OBJECTIVE Recent attempts to model the relative performances of eyewitness lineup procedures necessarily include theoretical assumptions about the various costs/benefits, or utilities, of different identification outcomes. We collected data to incorporate empirically derived utilities into such modeling as well as data on various stakeholders' views of lineup procedures as tertiary objectives. HYPOTHESES This research was exploratory; therefore, we did not have a priori hypotheses. METHOD We surveyed judges' (n = 70), prosecutors' (n = 28), police officers' (n = 82), and laypersons' (n = 191) opinions about eyewitness identification procedures and the utilities of outcomes of eyewitness identification procedures. We incorporated the utility judgments into models comparing the desirability of various lineup reforms and compared policy preferences between our samples. RESULTS All samples frequently mentioned estimator and system variables in open-ended evaluations of lineup procedures, but legal samples mentioned system variables more often than did laypersons. Reflector variables (e.g., confidence) were mentioned less often across the board, as was the scientific basis/standardization of identification policy (especially among laypersons). Utility judgments of various identification outcomes indicated that judges adopt values more closely aligned with normative legal ethics (i.e., the Blackstone ratio), whereas other stakeholders (especially laypersons) depart significantly from those standards. Utility models indicated general agreement among samples in lineup procedure preferences, which varied as a function of culprit-presence base rates. CONCLUSION Although legal stakeholders vary in how they value eyewitness identification outcomes, their values imply relatively consistent policy preferences that sometimes depart from scientific recommendations. Nonetheless, all samples expressed support for using scientific research to inform legal policy regarding eyewitness evidence. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

中文翻译：

---

法律行为者和外行人对目击者排队程序和结果的效用判断。


目标 最近对目击者排队程序的相对表现进行建模的尝试必然包括关于不同识别结果的各种成本/收益或效用的理论假设。我们收集了数据，将根据经验得出的实用程序纳入此类建模中，并收集了不同利益相关者对阵容程序作为第三目标的看法的数据。假设这项研究是探索性的；因此，我们没有先验假设。方法 我们调查了法官（n = 70）、检察官（n = 28）、警察（n = 82）和外行（n = 191）对目击者识别程序的看法以及目击者识别程序结果的效用。我们将效用判断纳入模型中，比较各种阵容改革的可取性，并比较样本之间的政策偏好。结果 所有样本在阵容程序的开放式评估中都频繁提及估计器和系统变量，但法律样本比外行更频繁地提及系统变量。反射变量（例如，置信度）很少被全面提及，识别政策的科学基础/标准化（尤其是在外行中）也是如此。对各种识别结果的效用判断表明，法官采用的价值观更符合规范的法律道德（即黑石比率），而其他利益相关者（尤其是外行人士）则明显偏离这些标准。效用模型表明样本之间在排队程序偏好方面存在普遍一致性，该偏好随着罪犯存在基本率的变化而变化。 结论 尽管法律利益相关者对目击者识别结果的评价各不相同，但他们的价值观意味着相对一致的政策偏好，有时会偏离科学建议。尽管如此，所有样本都表示支持利用科学研究来为有关目击者证据的法律政策提供信息。 （PsycInfo 数据库记录 (c) 2024 APA，保留所有权利）。