OBJECTIVE We investigated the effects of administrator knowledge of suspect identity in a lineup (blind vs. nonblind), witness identification (suspect vs. filler), and witness confidence (high vs. low) on whether administrators recorded the identification as an affirmative response; whether administrators recorded qualitative notes regarding the lineup task; and the content of those qualitative notes. HYPOTHESES We predicted that nonblind administrators would record more identifications of the suspect than the filler, but blind administrators would record such identifications at comparable rates. We predicted this difference would be larger in the low (vs. high) confidence condition. We examined effects on administrators' qualitative notes in an exploratory fashion. METHOD Undergraduate participant administrators (N = 488) presented a lineup to a confederate witness (who made a scripted identification decision) and completed a record of the lineup task. RESULTS Nonblind administrators recorded 25% fewer identifications of fillers (vs. suspects), and evaluated witnesses less favorably in the filler (vs. suspect) identification condition (ηp² = .194). Blind administrators were not influenced by witness selection. Blind (vs. nonblind) administrators recorded more qualitative notes, confidence statements, and information relevant to witnesses' decision processes, regardless of whether witnesses identified the suspect or the filler. Among those who recorded a confidence statement, nonblind administrators' characterizations were biased such that independent coders judged witnesses to be more confident in their identifications of the suspect (vs. filler). CONCLUSION Blind administration eliminates numerous biases associated with administrator expectations and may yield more informative lineup records. These results further support blind lineup reform recommendations. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

中文翻译：

---

管理员失明会影响目击者阵容结果的记录。

目的我们调查了管理员对阵容中的可疑身份的了解（盲人与非盲人），证人身份（可疑与填充人）以及证人信心（高与低）对管理员是否将身份记录为肯定回应的影响；管理员是否记录了有关阵容任务的定性注释；以及这些定性注释的内容。假设我们预测，非盲目管理员会记录犯罪嫌疑人的身份要多于补遗者，但盲人管理员会记录此类身份的可比率。我们预测，在低（相对于高）置信度条件下，此差异将更大。我们以探索性方式研究了对管理员定性注释的影响。方法本科生参与者管理者（N = 488）向同盟见证人（他们做出了脚本化的鉴定决定）提交了一份阵容，并完成了阵容任务的记录。结果非盲目的管理员记录的填充物（相对于嫌疑人）识别减少了25％，对见证人的填充物（相对于可疑）识别条件的评价较差（ηp²= .194）。盲目管理员不受证人选择的影响。盲人（相对于非盲人）管理员记录了更多的定性注释，信心陈述以及与证人的决策过程相关的信息，无论证人是确定嫌疑人还是填补者。在记录信任声明的人员中，非盲目管理员 这些特征存在偏见，以至于独立编码人员认为证人对他们对犯罪嫌疑人的识别更有信心（与填充者相对）。结论盲目管理消除了许多与管理员期望有关的偏见，并可能产生更多的信息。这些结果进一步支持了盲目的阵容改革建议。（PsycINFO数据库记录（c）2019 APA，保留所有权利）。