Previniendo injusticias: cómo la psicología del testimonio permite comprender y prevenir el falso reconocimiento de un sospechoso

DOI:  https://doi.org/10.12804/revistas.urosario.edu.co/apl/a.6471

Barra lateral del artículo

PDF (Português (Brasil)) HTML Lector Inteligente ePub

Publicado: mar 30, 2020
Número: Vol. 38 Núm. 1 (2020): Avances en Psicología Latinoamericana
Sección Artículos


Contenido principal del artículo

Autores/as

  William Weber Cecconello
Pontificia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul.
  Lilian Milnitsky Stein
Pontificia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul.

Resumen

El reconocimiento de un sospechoso tiene gran relevancia en el acervo probatorio, pero un inocente puede ser reconocido como el criminal. Un reconocimiento falso puede ocurrir debido al funcionamiento normal de la memoria, factores que pueden interferir en las etapas de codificación de la cara del criminal, o por el olvido de informaciones almacenadas. Durante el reconocimiento del sospechoso, factores como la manera en que el sospechoso es presentado, o el tipo de instrucción dada al testigo también pueden aumentar la probabilidad de un falso reconocimiento. Este artículo pretende presentar cómo procesos psicológicos y procedimientos realizados para obtener la prueba testimonial pueden resultar en un reconocimiento falso. Al final, se presentan procedimientos recomendados por la literatura científica para disminuir las posibilidades de un reconocimiento falso.
Cómo citar
Weber Cecconello, W., & Milnitsky Stein, L. (2020). Previniendo injusticias: cómo la psicología del testimonio permite comprender y prevenir el falso reconocimiento de un sospechoso. Avances En Psicología Latinoamericana , 38(1), 172–188. https://doi.org/10.12804/revistas.urosario.edu.co/apl/a.6471
Referencias bibliográfica

Agricola, B. H. (2009). The psychology of pretrial reconhecetion procedures: The showup is showing out and undermining the criminal justice system. Law & Psychology Review, 33, 125-137. https://doi.org/10.1005/622169289-2009-17811-006

Berkowitz, S. R., & Frenda, S. J. (2018). Rethink-ing the confident eyewitness: A reply to Wix-ted, Mickes, & Fisher. Perspectives on Psy-chological Science,13(3), 336-338. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617751883

Bernstein, D. M., & Loftus, E. F. (2009). How to tell if a particular memory is true or false. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(4), 370–374. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01140.x

Bindemann, M., Sandford, A., Gillatt, K., Avetisyan, M., & Megreya, A. M. (2012). Recognising faces seen alone or with others: Why are two heads worse than one? Perception, 41(4), 415-435. https://doi.org/10.1068/p6922

Blank, H., & Launay, C. (2014). How to protect eyewitness memory against the misinformation effect: A meta-analysis of post-warning studies. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 3(2), 77-88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2014.03.005

Brewer, N., & Wells, G. L. (2009). Obtaining and interpreting eyewitness reconhecetion test evi-dence: The influence of police-witness interac-tions. Em T. Williamson, R. Bull & T. Valentine (Eds.), Handbook of psychology of invetiga-tive interviewing: Current developments and future directions (pp. 205–220). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.

Bruce, V., & Young, A. W. (2012). Face perception. Nueva York: Psychology Press.Cecconello, W. W., de Ávila, G. N., & Stein, L. M. (2018). A (ir) repetibilidade da prova penal de-pendente da memória: uma discussão a partir da psicologia do testemunho. Revista Brasileira de Políticas Públicas, 8(2), 1058-1073. https://doi.org/10.5102/rbpp.v8i2.5312

Charman, S. D., & Wells, G.L. (2006). Applied line-up theory. Em R. CL. Lindsay, D. F. Ross, J. D. Read, & M. P. Toglia (Eds.), Handbook of eyewitness psychology: Memory for people(pp. 219-254). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbau.

Clark, S. E., (2012). Costs and benefits of eyewitness reconhecetion reform: Psychological science and public policy. Perspectives on Psycho-logical Science, 7(3), 238-259. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612439584

Clark, S. E. & Godfrey, R. D. (2009). Eyewitness reconhecetion evidence and innocence risk. Psychonomic Bulletin {&} Review, 16(1), 22-42. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.16.1.22

Clark, S. E., Howell, R. T., & Davey, S. L. (2008). Regularities in eyewitness recongnition. Law and Human Behavior, 32(3), 187-218. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-006-9082-4

Colloff, M. F., Wade, K. A., & Strange, D. (2016). Unfair lineups make witnesses more likely to confuse innocent and guilty suspects. Psycho-logical Science, 27(9), 1227-1239. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797616655789

Davis, D., & Loftus, E. F. (2018). Eyewitness science in the 21st century: What do we know and where do we go from here? Em J. T. Wixted (Ed.), Ste-vens’ handbook of experimental psychology and cognitive neuroscience (pp. 529-566). New York: Wiley. Doi: 10.1002/9781119170174.epcn116

Davis, J. P., & Valentine, T. (2009). cctv on trial: Matching video images with the defendant in the dock. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23(4), 482-505. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1490

Deffenbacher, K. A., Bornstein, B. H., Penrod, S. D., & Mcgorty, E. K. (2004). A meta-analytic review of the effects of high stress on eyewitness memory. Law and Human Behavior, 28(6), 687-706. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-004-0565-x

Dekle, D. J. (2006). Viewing composite sketches: Lineups and showups compared. Applied Cog-nitive Psychology, 20(3), 383-395. Doi:10.1002/acp.1185

Demarchi, S., & Py, J. (2009). A method to enhance person description: A field study. Em R. Bull, T. Valentine, & T. Williamson (Eds.), Handbook of psychology of investigative interviewing: Current developments and future directions(pp. 241-256). New York: Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470747599

Dysart, J. E., Lindsay, R. C. L., & Dupuis, P. R. (2006). Show-ups: the critical issue of clothing bias. Ap-plied Cognitive Psychology, 20(8), 1009-1023. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1241

Dysart, J. E., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (2007). The effect of delay on eyewitness identification accuracy: Should we be concerned? Em R. C. L. Lindsay, D. R. Ross, J. D. Read & M. P. Toglia (Eds.), The handbook of eyewitness psychology, Vol. II, Memory for people (pp. 361-376). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Eisen, M. L., Smith, A. M., Olaguez, A. P., & Sker-ritt-Perta, A. S. (2017). An examination of showups conducted by law enforcement us-ing a field-simulation paradigm. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law,23(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000115

Eisen, M. L., Gabbert, F., Ying, R., & Williams, J. (2017). “I think he had a tattoo on his neck”: How co-witness discussions about a perpetra-tor’s description can affect eyewitness identifi-cation decisions. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6(3), 274-282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.01.009

Erickson, W. B., Lampinen, J. M., & Moore, K. N. (2016). Eyewitness identifications by older and younger adults: A meta-analysis and discussion. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 31(2), 108-121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-015-9176-3

Faerber, S. J., Kaufmann, J. M., Leder, H., Martin, E. M., & Schweinberger, S. R. (2016). The role of familiarity for representations in norm-based face space. PLoS ONE, 11(5), 1-15. Doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0155380

Fawcett, J. M., Russell, E. J., Peace, K. A., & Christie, J. (2013). Of guns and geese: a meta-analytic review of the “weapon focus” literature. Psy-chology, Crime & Law, 19(1), 35-66. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2011.599325

Fitzgerald, R. J., & Price, H. L. (2015). Eyewit-ness reconhecetion across the life span: A meta-analysis of age differences. Psycholog-ical Bulletin, 141(2), 1228-1265. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000013

Freeman, J. B., Penner, A. M., Saperstein, A., Scheutz, M., & Ambady, N. (2011). Looking the Part: So-cial Status Cues Shape Race Perception. PLoS ONE, 6(9), e25107. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0025107

Frowd, C., Bruce, V., McIntyre, A., & Hancock, P. (2007). The relative importance of external and internal features of facial composites. British Journal of Psychology, 98(1), 61-77. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712606X104481

Brito, G. (9 de outubro de 2014). “Aprendi a ter fé”, diz inocentado após 7 meses preso por estupros no Rio. G1. Disponível em http://g1.globo.com/rio-de-janeiro/noticia/2014/10/aprendi-ter-fe-diz-inocentado-apos-7-meses-preso-por-estupros-no-rio.html

Godfrey, R. D., & Clark, S. E. (2010). Repeated eyewitness reconhecetion procedures: Memory, decision making, and probative value. Law and Human Behavior, 34(3), 241-258. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-009-9187-7

Hobson, Z. J., & Wilcock, R. (2011). Eyewitness reconhecetion of multiple perpetrators. Inter-national Journal of Police Science & Manage-ment, 13(4), 286-296. https://doi.org/10.1350/ijps.2011.13.4.253

Hugenberg, K., Young, S. G., Bernstein, M. J., & Sacco, D. F. (2010). The categorization-indi-viduation model: An integrative account of the other-race recognition deficit. Psychological Re-view, 117(4), 1168-1187. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020463

Jenkins, R., White, D., van Montfort, X., & Burton, A. M. (2011). Variability in photos of the same face. Cognition, 121(3), 313-323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2011.08.001

Kieckhaefer, J. M., Vallano, J. P., & Schreiber Com-po, N. (2014). Examining the positive effects of rapport building: When and why does rap-port building benefit adult eyewitness memory? Memory, 22(8), 1010-1023. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2013.864313

Lampinen, J. M., Erickson, W. B., Moore, K. N., & Hittson, A. (2014). Effects of distance on face recognition: implications for eyewitness reconhecetion. Psychonomic Bulletin & Re-view, 21(6), 1489-1494. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-014-0641-2

Leach, A.-M., Cutler, B. L., & Van Wallendael, L. (2009). Lineups and eyewitness reconhecetion. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 5(1), 157-178. Doi: 10.1146/annurev.lawsocsci.093008.131529

Lindsay, R. C., Semmler, C., Weber, N., Brewer, N., & Lindsay, M. R. (2008). How variations in distance affect eyewitness reports and identi-fication accuracy. Law and Human Behavior, 32(6), 526-535. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-008-9128-x

Loftus, E. F. (2005). Planting misinformation in the human mind: A 30-year investigation of the mal-leability of memory. Learning & Memory,12(4), 361-366. https://doi.org/10.1101/lm.94705Loftus, E. F. (2013). Eyewitness testimony in the Lock-erbie bombing case. Memory, 21(5), 584-590. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2013.774417Loftus, E. F., & Greenspan, R. L. (2017). If I’m certain, is it true? accuracy and confidence in eyewitness memory. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 18(1), 1-2. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100617699241Malpass, R. S., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (1999). Measuring lineup fairness. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13(S1), S1-S7.Malpass, R. S. Tredoux, C. G., & McQuiston-Sur-rett, D. (2007). Lineup construction and lineup fairness. Em R. Lindsay, D. Ross, J. D. Read, & M. P. Toglia (Eds.) The handbook of eyewitness psychology, Vol II: Memory for people (pp. 155-178). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Mansour, J. K., Beaudry, J. L., Kalmet, N., Bertrand, M. I., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (2017). Evaluating lineup fairness: Variations across methods and measures. Law and Human Behavior, 41(1), 103-115. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000203

Mcallister, H. A., Stewart, H. A., & Loveland, J. (2003). Effects of mug book size and com-puterized pruning on the usefulness of dy-namic mug book procedures. Psychology, Crime & Law, 9(3), 265-277. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316031000081363

Meissner, C. A., & Brigham, J. C. (2001). Thirty years of investigating the own-race bias in memory for faces: A meta-analytic review. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.728

Meissner, C. A., Sporer, S. L., & Susa, K. J. (2008). A theoretical review and meta-analysis of the description-reconhecetion relationship in memory for faces. European Journal of Cog-nitive Psychology, 20(3), 414-455. https://doi.org/10.1080/09541440701728581

Memon, A., & Bruce, V. (1985). Context effects in episodic studies of verbal and facial memory: A review. Current Psychology, 4(4), 349-369. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02686589

Mickes, L., Seale-Carlisle, T. M., Wetmore, S. A., Gronlund, S. D., Clark, S. E., Carlson, C. A., Goodsell, C. A., Weatherford, D., & Wixted, J. T. ( 2017). rocs in eyewitness identification: Instructions versus confidence ratings. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 31(5), 467- 477. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3344

Milne, R., Shaw, G., & Bull, R. (2007). Investigative interviewing: The role of psychology. Em D. Carson, R. Milne, F. Pakes, & K. Shalev, (Eds): Applying Psychology to Criminal Justice (pp. 65-80). Chichester: Wiley.

Morgan III, C. A., Hazlett, G., Doran, A., Garrett, S., Hoyt, G., Thomas, P., ... Southwick, S. M. (2004). Accuracy of eyewitness memory for persons encountered during exposure to highly intense stress. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 27(3), 265-279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2004.03.004

Murphy, G., & Greene, C. M. (2016). Perceptu-al load affects eyewitness accuracy and sus-ceptibility to leading questions. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01322

National Research Council. (2014). Identifying the culprit: Assessing identification evidence. Washington D.C.: National Academies Press.

Osborne, D., & Davies, P. G. (2014). Crime type, per-ceived stereotypicality, and memory biases: A contextual model of eyewitness reconhecetion. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28(3), 392-402. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3009

Oxburgh, G. E., Myklebust, T., & Grant, T. (2010). The question of question types in police in-terviews: A review of the literature from a psychological and linguistic perspective. In-ternational Journal of Speech, Language & the Law, 17(1), 45-66. https://doi.org/10.1558/ijsll.v17i1.45

Paterson, H. M., & Kemp, R. I. (2006). Co-witnesses talk: A survey of eyewitness discussion. Psy-chology, Crime & Law, 12(2), 181-191. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160512331316334

Payne, D. G., Toglia, M. P., & Anastasi, J. S. (1994). Recognition performance level and the mag-nitude of the misinformation effect in eye-witness memory. Psychonomic Bulletin {&} Review, 1(3), 376-382. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03213978

Poole, D. A., & Lindsay, D. S. (1995). Interview-ing preschoolers: Effects of nonsuggestive techniques, parental coaching, and leading questions on reports of nonexperienced events. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 60(1), 129-154. https://doi.org/10.1006/jecp.1995.1035

Rivard, J. R., Pena, M. M., & Compo, N. S. (2016). “Blind” interviewing: Is ignorance bliss? Memory, 24(9), 1256-1266. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/09658211.2015.1098705

Schacter, D. L., & Loftus, E. F. (2013). Memory and law: What can cognitive neuroscience con-tribute? Nature Neuroscince, 16(2), 119-123. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.3294

Smith, A. M., & Cutler, B. L. (2013). Introduction: Reconhecetion procedures and conviction of the innocent. Reform of Eyewitness Identifica-tion Procedures (pp. 3-21). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Sporer, S. L., Penrod, S., Read, D., & Cutler, B. (1995). Choosing, confidence, and accuracy: A meta-analysis of the confidence-accuracy rela-tion in eyewitness reconhecetion studies. Psy-chological Bulletin, 118(3), 315-327. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.118.3.315

Steblay, N. K., Wells, G. L., & Douglass, A. B. (2014). Memory distortion in eyewitnesses: A me-ta-analysis of the post-reconhecetion feedback effect. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20(7), 859-869. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1237

Steblay, N. K., & Dysart, J. E. (2016). Repeated eyewitness reconhecetion procedures with the same suspect. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 5(3), 284-289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2016.06.010

Stein, L. M., & Ávila, G. N. (2015). Avanços cien-tíficos em psicologia do testemunho aplicados ao reconhecimento pessoal e aos depoimentos forenses. Brasília: Ministério da Justiça.

Thorley, C. (2015). Blame conformity: Innocent bystanders can be blamed for a crime as a result of misinformation from a young, but not elderly, adult co-witness. PLoS ONE, 10(7), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0134739

Todorov, A. (2012). The social perception of faces. The sage Handbook of Social Cog-nition (section II), 96-115. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446247631

Valentine, T., & Fitzgerald, R. J. (2016). Identify-ing the culprit: An international perspective on the National Academy of Sciences report on eyewitness reconhecetion evidence. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 30(1), 135-138. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3164

Valentine, T. Lewis, M. B., & Hills, P. J. (2016). Face-space: A unifying concept in face recognition research. The Quarterly Journal of Experimen-tal Psychology, 69(10), 1996-2019. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2014.990392

Wade, K. A., Nash, R. A., & Lindsay, D. S. (2018). Reasons to doubt the reliability of eyewitness memory: Commentary on Wixted, Mickes, & Fisher (2018). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(3), 339-342. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691618758261

Watkin, T. (2003). In the dock: An overview of the decisions of the high court on dock reconhece-tions in the magistrates’ court. Criminal Law Review, 463-467.

Wells, G. L. (1978). Applied eyewitness-testimo-ny research: System variables and estimator variables. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(12), 1546-1557. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.36.12.1546

Wells, G. L., Memon, A., & Penrod, S. D. (2006). Eyewitness evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7(2), 45-75. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1529-1006.2006.00027.x

Wells, G. L., & Seelau, E. P. (1995). Eyewitness reconhe-cetion: Psychological research and legal policy on lineups. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 1(4), 765-791. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.1.4.765

West, E., & Meterko, V. (2015). Innocence project: dna exonerations, 1989-2014: Review of data and findings from the first 25 years. Albany Law Review, 79(3), 717-795.

Wetmore, S. A., Neuschatz, J. S., Gronlund, S. D., Wooten, A., Goodsell, C. A., & Carlson, C. A. (2015). Effect of retention interval on showup and lineup performance. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 4(1), 8-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2015.11.001

Wilcock, R. A., Bull, R., & Vrij, A. (2005). Aiding the performance of older eyewitnesses: En-hanced non-biased line-up instructions and line-up presentation. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 12(1), 129-140. https://doi.org/10.1375/pplt.2005.12.1.129

Wilcock, R., & Kneller, W. (2011). A comparison of presentation methods of video reconhecetion parades. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25(6), 835-840. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1754

Willis, J., & Todorov, A. (2006). First impressions: Making up your mind after a 100-ms expo-sure to a face. Psychological science, 17(7), 592-598. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01750.x

Wilson, J. P., Hugenberg, K., & Bernstein, M. J. (2013). The cross-race effect and eyewitness reconhecetion: How to improve recognition and reduce decision errors in eyewitness sit-uations. Social Issues and Policy Review, 7(1), 83-113. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-2409.2012.01044.x

Wixted, J. T., Mickes, L., & Fisher, R. P. (2018). Rethinking the reliability of eyewitness memory. Perspectives on Psychologi-cal Science,13(3), 324-335. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617734878

Wixted, J. T., & Wells, G. L. (2017). The relationship between eyewitness confidence and reconhece-tion accuracy: A new synthesis. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 18(1), 10-65. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100616686966

Wright, D. B., Memon, A., Skagerberg, E. M., & Gab-bert, F. (2009). When eyewitnesses talk. Cur-rent Directions in Psychological Science, 18(3), 174-178. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01631.x

Wright, D. B., & Villalba, D. K. (2012). Memory conformity affects inaccurate memories more than accurate memories. Memory, 20(3), 254-265. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2012.654798

Yarmey, A. D., Yarmey, M. J., & Yarmey, A. L. (1996). Accuracy of eyewitness identifications in showups and lineups. Law and Human Be-havior, 20(4), 459-477. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01498981

Young, S. G., Hugenberg, K., Bernstein, M. J., & Sacco, D. F. (2012). Perception and motivation in face recognition: A critical review of theories of the cross-race effect. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16(2), 116-142. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868311418987

Estadísticas de consulta

Descargas

Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.
Métricas de publicación

2686 424




 

Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC
Creative Commons License

Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 4.0.

Los autores conservan los derechos de autor y garantizan a la revista el derecho de ser la primera publicación del trabajo al igual que licenciado bajo una Creative Commons Attribution License que permite a otros compartir el trabajo con un reconocimiento de la autoría del trabajo y la publicación inicial en esta revista.

Artículos similares

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 > >> 

También puede Iniciar una búsqueda de similitud avanzada para este artículo.