{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02642559109874826, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0013908205841446453, 'mean_word_length': 5.918269230769231, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Discriminating Between Correct and Incorrect Eyewitness Identifications: The Use of Appropriate Cues

To explain fact finders’ judgment accuracy when evaluating the accuracy of an identification decision we applied the Brunswikian lens model. Guided by this model we examined (a) which cues observers use to evaluate an identification decision and how they interpret them (“subjective utilities”); and (b) if these cues as perceived by observers are indeed related to identification accuracy (“ecological validities”). Ninety-six participant-observers were presented with 48 videotaped positive identification decisions. For half of the participants, a think-aloud method was employed to make discriminating cues more salient to observers; the other half retrospectively provided reasons for their decisions. As expected, discriminating cues were visible only when think-aloud protocols were used. However, observers’ use of these cues as indicators of identification accuracy was independent of type of decision protocol. Thus, only in the think-aloud condition was a high correspondence between subjective utilities and ecological validities observed. Advantages of think-aloud methods and videotapes to increase fact finders’ judgment accuracy when evaluating identification decisions are discussed. Additional data from a follow-up experiment replicating these findings with transcripts are presented in online supplementary material.