Policy Forum: Studying Eyewitness Investigations in the Field

This article considers methodological issues arising from recent efforts to provide field tests of eyewitness identification procedures. We focus in particular on a field study (Mecklenburg 2006) that examined the “double blind, sequential” technique, and consider the implications of an acknowledged...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Schacter, Daniel L., Dawes, Robyn, Jacoby, Larry L., Kahneman, Daniel, Lempert, Richard, Roediger, Henry L., Rosenthal, Robert
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer US 2007
Materias:
Original Article
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2175020/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17610149
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10979-007-9093-9
Descripción
Sumario:This article considers methodological issues arising from recent efforts to provide field tests of eyewitness identification procedures. We focus in particular on a field study (Mecklenburg 2006) that examined the “double blind, sequential” technique, and consider the implications of an acknowledged methodological confound in the study. We explain why the confound has severe consequences for assessing the real-world implications of this study.

Ejemplares similares