OBJECTIVE We examined whether variations in the strength of the evidentiary connection between a suspect and the crime under investigation affected officers' decisions to place suspects into an identification procedure and whether education about the problems associated with base-rate neglect sensitized officers to variations in evidentiary connection. METHOD Police officers (N = 279; age range = 24-70; 86% male) read a hypothetical crime scenario, adopting the role of the lead investigator. The scenarios varied in how closely the suspect was connected to the crime (evidentiary connection: weak vs. strong). Before reading the crime scenarios, half of the participants received education about the relationship between the base rate of guilt among suspects placed in lineups and the prevalence of mistaken identifications (education: present vs. absent). Officers indicated whether they would conduct an identification procedure with a witness based on the evidence they currently had against the suspect. HYPOTHESES We expected that participants would better distinguish between the strong and weak evidentiary connection conditions when education was present than when it was absent. RESULTS Education did not sensitize officers to the strength of the evidence connecting the suspect to the crime under investigation, but officers were sensitive to variations in evidentiary connection without benefit of the educational intervention. However, a majority of officers were willing to subject a suspect to an identification procedure even when there was no evidence connecting the suspect to the crime. CONCLUSIONS Officers' decisions about placing suspects in lineups reflect some level of base-rate neglect that remained even after education about the importance of increasing the ratio of culprit-present to culprit-absent lineups for decreasing mistaken identifications. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

中文翻译：

---

证据强度（不足）会影响警察将嫌疑人排入队列的决定。

目标 我们检查了嫌疑人和被调查罪行之间证据联系强度的变化是否影响官员将嫌疑人置于识别程序中的决定，以及关于与基本比率忽视相关的问题的教育是否使官员对证据联系的变化敏感. 方法 警察（N = 279；年龄范围 = 24-70；86% 男性）阅读假设的犯罪场景，扮演首席调查员的角色。犯罪嫌疑人与犯罪的联系程度不同（证据联系：弱与强）。在阅读犯罪场景之前，一半的参与者接受了有关被排在队列中的嫌疑人的基本有罪率与错误识别发生率之间关系的教育（教育：存在 vs. 缺席的）。官员们表示，他们是否会根据他们目前掌握的针对嫌疑人的证据与证人进行身份识别程序。假设 我们期望参与者在有教育时比没有教育时能更好地区分强和弱的证据联系条件。结果 教育并没有使警官对将嫌疑人与正在调查的犯罪联系起来的证据强度敏感，但警官对证据联系的变化很敏感，而没有受益于教育干预。然而，即使没有证据将嫌疑人与犯罪联系起来，大多数官员也愿意对嫌疑人进行身份识别程序。结论 官员 关于将嫌疑人置于阵容中的决定反映了某种程度的基本率忽视，即使在接受了关于增加罪犯在场与罪犯缺席阵容的比例以减少错误识别的重要性的教育之后，这种忽视仍然存在。（PsycInfo 数据库记录 (c) 2022 APA，保留所有权利）。