Abstract

Eyewitness identification is a critical stage in the criminal justice process for suspect determination; however, errors in this process can infringe upon individual rights and undermine the realization of justice. Social and institutional contexts are increasingly recognized as key factors shaping eyewitness judgment. Understanding whether individuals in different countries are more inclined to tolerate or avoid certain types of errors provides important insights for institutional design. This study examines behavioral tendencies in eyewitness identification among Korean and British participants, focusing on preferences between Type I errors-higher likelihood of identifying the perpetrator but also higher risk of misidentifying innocent citizens-and Type II errors-lower likelihood of identifying the perpetrator but reduced risk of misidentification. A total of 600 participants (300 Koreans, 300 Britons) were recruited through a professional survey company. Participants were asked to choose between the simultaneous lineup method (higher accuracy but greater error potential) and the sequential lineup method (lower accuracy but reduced error potential) under conditions of uncertainty regarding the perpetrator’s presence. Regulatory focus was also measured using a 5-point Likert scale. Results revealed significant main effects of nationality and moderation effects of prevention focus. Koreans tended to prefer Type II errors, whereas Britons favored Type I errors, and these tendencies were strengthened among participants with higher prevention focus. These findings suggest that social and institutional contexts play a decisive role in shaping risk perceptions in eyewitness identification. Koreans viewed the wrongful accusation of innocent citizens as a greater risk, favoring cautious judgments consistent with Type II errors. In contrast, Britons regarded failing to identify the perpetrator as a failure of justice, favoring more proactive identification aligned with Type I errors. Such differences underscore the importance of incorporating social and institutional contexts into the design of criminal justice procedures and policy-making across nations.