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
_version_ 1782145402655473664
author Schacter, Daniel L.
Dawes, Robyn
Jacoby, Larry L.
Kahneman, Daniel
Lempert, Richard
Roediger, Henry L.
Rosenthal, Robert
author_facet Schacter, Daniel L.
Dawes, Robyn
Jacoby, Larry L.
Kahneman, Daniel
Lempert, Richard
Roediger, Henry L.
Rosenthal, Robert
author_sort Schacter, Daniel L.
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Text
id pubmed-2175020
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2007
publisher Springer US
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-21750202008-01-11 Policy Forum: Studying Eyewitness Investigations in the Field Schacter, Daniel L. Dawes, Robyn Jacoby, Larry L. Kahneman, Daniel Lempert, Richard Roediger, Henry L. Rosenthal, Robert Law Hum Behav Original Article 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. Springer US 2007-07-04 2008-02 /pmc/articles/PMC2175020/ /pubmed/17610149 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10979-007-9093-9 Text en © Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2007
spellingShingle Original Article
Schacter, Daniel L.
Dawes, Robyn
Jacoby, Larry L.
Kahneman, Daniel
Lempert, Richard
Roediger, Henry L.
Rosenthal, Robert
Policy Forum: Studying Eyewitness Investigations in the Field
title Policy Forum: Studying Eyewitness Investigations in the Field
title_full Policy Forum: Studying Eyewitness Investigations in the Field
title_fullStr Policy Forum: Studying Eyewitness Investigations in the Field
title_full_unstemmed Policy Forum: Studying Eyewitness Investigations in the Field
title_short Policy Forum: Studying Eyewitness Investigations in the Field
title_sort policy forum: studying eyewitness investigations in the field
topic Original Article
url 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
work_keys_str_mv AT schacterdaniell policyforumstudyingeyewitnessinvestigationsinthefield
AT dawesrobyn policyforumstudyingeyewitnessinvestigationsinthefield
AT jacobylarryl policyforumstudyingeyewitnessinvestigationsinthefield
AT kahnemandaniel policyforumstudyingeyewitnessinvestigationsinthefield
AT lempertrichard policyforumstudyingeyewitnessinvestigationsinthefield
AT roedigerhenryl policyforumstudyingeyewitnessinvestigationsinthefield
AT rosenthalrobert policyforumstudyingeyewitnessinvestigationsinthefield

Ejemplares similares