51:
knock her over, and take her purse. The perpetrator's face was only visible for about 3.5 seconds. The clip was followed by the announcer asking participants at home for cooperation in identifying the man who stole the purse. There was a lineup of six male suspects, each having a number associated with him. The people at home could call a number on their screen to report which suspect they believed was the perpetrator. The perpetrator was suspect number 2. Callers also had the option of reporting that they did not believe the perpetrator was in the lineup. Approximately equal contingents of participants chose suspects 1, 2, or 5, while the largest group of participants, about 25 percent, said they believed the perpetrator was not in the lineup. Even police precincts called in and reported the wrong man as the one they believed committed the crime. A key purpose of this experiment was aimed toward proving the need for better systems of getting suspect descriptions from eyewitnesses.
261:
surrounding visual markers. The use of lineups shows its production isn't as impacted, with certain studies showing no effect, while others having less accuracy. The first controlled experiment on weapons focus (I) was conducted by
Elizabeth Loftus. Participants were shown slides of individuals in a fast-food restaurant, either (c) handing a check to the cashier or (g) pointing a gun at the cashier. Following this, participants were given a short retention interval, after which they completed a questionnaire, and were then shown a fair-perpetrator 12-person lineup. In the first experiment, the participant's memory was slightly worse. In the second, the assailant was correctly identified slightly less often in the weapon condition. The questionnaire and line-up results of experiment II showed those in the g group with worse memory, compared to the control-conditioned group.
291:, the intense shock of the event should have made the memory of the event incredibly accurate. This same logic is often applied to those who witness a criminal act. To test this assumption, participants were asked questions that planted false information about the event. Fifty-five percent of subjects reported having watched the moment of impact on television, and recalled the moment the plane broke out in flames-even though it was impossible for them to have seen either of these occurrences. One researcher remarked, "ery critical sense would have made our subjects realize that the implanted information could not possibly be true. We are still at a loss as to why so few of them realized this."
125:. Memory conformity is when you report another person's experience as your own. Of course, in some cases this can be a positive thing if enough people saw the right thing and were able to report it accurately. However, most memory conformity comes from wanting your personal experience to match others. Individuals who identified a suspect with blonde hair, but two other people reported they had brown hair, the person who identified blonde hair would most likely change their answers. “People may agree with another person because of normative pressures to conform even when they believe the response is in error.” (Gabbert, Wright, Memon, & Skagerberg, 2012).
312:. The approach focuses on making witness aware of all events surrounding a crime without generating false memories or inventing details. In this tactic, the interviewer builds a rapport with the witness before asking any questions. They then allow the witness to provide an open ended account of the situation. The interviewer then asks follow up questions to clarify the witness' account, reminding the witness it is acceptable to be unsure and move on. This approach guides the witness over a rigid protocol. When implemented correctly, the CI showed more accuracy and efficiency without additional incorrect information being generated.
23:
happened from a witness' point of view. Memory recall has been considered a credible source in the past, but has recently come under attack as forensics can now support psychologists in their claim that memories and individual perceptions can be unreliable, manipulated, and biased. As a result of this, many countries, and states within the United States, are now attempting to make changes in how eyewitness testimony is presented in court. Eyewitness testimony is a specialized focus within
173:
often thought to weaken memories, it is also involved in strengthening them, and in updating them with new information. Schacter and Loftus (2013) cited that "Reconsolidation may be a mechanism for updating memories with current information to keep them relevant. In so doing, however, this updating mechanism may also contribute to changes and distortions in memory over time as a consequence of memory reactivation."
134:
only keeps items in the brain for about 10 to 15 seconds. This means that if someone is not repeating everything they just witnessed over and over again to convert it over into their working or long-term memory, there is a good chance they can only remember the basic facts of the situation. Perceived or elapsed time can be altered during sudden or surprising events and influence eyewitness testimony.
43:(1908) demonstrated the fallibility of eyewitness accounts, but met with fierce criticism, particularly in legal circles. His ideas did, however, gain popularity with the public. Decades later, DNA testing would clear individuals convicted on the basis of errant eyewitness testimony. Studies by Scheck, Neufel, and Dwyer showed that many DNA-based exonerations involved eyewitness evidence.
247:
that when a woman was recalling information about a woman, the resistance to false details was higher and the recall was more accurate. If a man was recalling an incident involving a man, similarly the recall was more accurate. However, when dealing with opposite genders, the participants gave into the suggestibility (misinformation) more easily and demonstrated less accuracy.
94:. Witness expectations are to blame for the distortion that may come from confirmation bias. For example, Lindholm and Christianson (1998) found that witnesses of a mock crime, who did not witness the whole crime, nevertheless testified to what they expected would have happened. These expectations are normally similar across individuals, due to the details of the environment.
83:(Loftus and Palmer, 1974). After a crime occurs, and an eyewitness comes forward, law enforcement tries to gather as much information as they can, in order to avoid any influence that may come from the environment, such as the media. Many times, when the crime is surrounded by much publicity, an eyewitness may experience source
239:
after the participant was asked to recall details. This happens because of one of two reasons. First, it can alter the memory, incorporating the misinformation in with the actual, true memory. Second, the original memory and new information may both reside in memory in turn creating two conflicting ideas that compete in recall.
55:
puts the visceral experience of the event large, front and center of attention for a witness or a victim. However, this also has the effect of making it difficult for them to pay close attention to every material detail of the event; that is, their ability to remember any particular thing that potentially
434:
created new rules for the admissibility of eyewitness testimony in court. The new rules require judges to explain to jurors any influences that may heighten the risk for error in the testimony. The rules are part of nationwide court reform that attempts to improve the validity of eyewitness testimony
233:
Elizabeth Loftus is one of the leading psychologists in the field of eyewitness testimony. She provided extensive research on this topic, revolutionizing the field with her bold stance that challenges the credibility of eyewitness testimony in court. She suggests that memory is not reliable and goes
209:
emory is personal, not because of some intangible and hypothetical persisting ‘self ’, which receives and maintains innumerable traces, restimulating them whenever it needs; but because the mechanism of adult human memory demands an organisation of ‘schemata’ depending upon an interplay of appetites,
315:
Currently, this is the U.S. Department of
Justice's suggested method for law enforcement officials to use in obtaining information from witnesses. Programs training officers in this method have been developed outside the U.S. in many European countries, as well as Australia, New Zealand, and Israel.
294:
A survey of research on the matter confirm eyewitness testimony consistently changes over time and based on the type of questioning. The approach investigators and lawyers take in their questioning has repeatedly shown to alter eyewitness response. One study showed changing certain words and phrases
242:
Loftus conducted more experiments to prove the reliability of expert psychological testimony versus the accepted basic eyewitness testimony. It was found that jurors who hear about a violent crime are more likely to convict a defendant than of one from a nonviolent crime. To reduce this tendency for
246:
Also, it has been shown that intelligence and gender has a role in the ability of accurate memory recall. Participants were measured in eyewitness performance in two areas: 1) the ability to resist adding misinformation to the memory and 2) accuracy of recalling the incident and person. It showed
238:
In one of her experiments, Loftus demonstrates that false verbal
Information can integrate with original memory. Participants were presented with either truthful information or misleading information, and overall it showed that even the false information verbally presented became part of the memory
172:
Every time a witness reflects on an event, it is only natural that the memory can begin to fade or be changed due to reconsolidation. Reconsolidation is where reactivated memories enter a transient state of instability in which they are prone to disruption or change. While memory reconsolidation is
163:
of a crime, there are automatic consolidations taking place. There were events that occurred before and after the crime. They also have the influence of what others may have reported about the events of the crime. There are many things a witness might claim or believe to remember, but they may fail
133:
In the event of witnessing a crime, it happens so quickly one can be susceptible to being in a state of shock. Once the initial surprise wears off, an individual can be left wondering what just happened? The problem with witnesses trying to recall such specific information is that short-term memory
106:
Research on eyewitness testimony looks at systematic variables or estimator variables. Estimator variables are characteristics of the witness, event, testimony, or testimony evaluators. Systematic variables are variables that are, or have the possibility of, being controlled by the criminal justice
54:
The question at hand is: What is there about an event that makes it so easy for eyewitness testimonies to be misremembered? As it pertains to witnessing crime in real time, “uniqueness is overshadowed by the conditions for observations”. The surprise or shock over the fact that a crime is happening
22:
is the account a bystander or victim gives in the courtroom, describing what that person observed that occurred during the specific incident under investigation. Ideally this recollection of events is detailed; however, this is not always the case. This recollection is used as evidence to show what
282:
A prime example of this is in the initial questioning process conducted by authorities. As an official investigation launches, police ask many questions ranging from race to weight of the perpetrator. All the information collected can be used to pull photographs of prime suspects or lead to a line
260:
When an eyewitness of a crime focuses their attention on a weapon, it reduces their attention to other details, and thus, diminishes the reliability of their memory of the incident. The presence of a weapon impacts some details of the crime committed, such as what the assailant is wearing or other
250:
Facial recognition is a good indicator of how easily memories can be manipulated. In this specific experiment, if a misleading feature was presented, more than a third of the participants recalled that detail. With a specific detail, almost 70% of people claimed that it had been there, when it had
97:
The responsibility to evaluate the credibility of eyewitness testimony falls on each individual juror, when such evidence is offered as testimony in a trial in the United States. Research has shown that mock juries are often unable to distinguish between a false and accurate eyewitness testimony.
286:
Studies conducted by
Crombag (1996) discovered that in an incident involving a crew attempting to return to the airport but were unable to maintain flight and crashed into an 11-story apartment building. Though no cameras caught the moment of impact on film, many news stations covered the tragedy
214:
Further research of schemas shows memories that are inconsistent with a schema decay faster than those that match up with a schema. Tuckey and Brewer found pieces of information that were inconsistent with a typical robbery decayed much faster than those that were schema consistent over a 12-week
50:
In his study, "Nearly 2,000 witnesses can be wrong", Buckhout performed an experiment with 2,145 at-home viewers of a popular news broadcast. The television network played a 13-second clip of a mock robbery, produced by
Buckhout. In the video, viewers watched a man in a hat run up behind a woman,
204:
as a major cause of this occurrence. People attempt to place past events into existing representations of the world, making the memory more coherent. Instead of remembering precise details about commonplace occurrences, a schema is developed. A schema is a generalization formed mentally based on
120:
When a crime occurs and multiple people are around to witness it, the first reaction is usually to go to the person next to you to confirm what you just saw. If you and other witnesses are required to stay at the scene of the crime, you are more likely to talk to more and more people about their
146:
is the term used when a witness accepts information after the actual event and incorporates it into the memory of the event itself. Children's developmental level (generally correlated with age) causes them to be more easily influenced by leading questions, misinformation, and other post-event
409:
Are there additional clues to intended veracity? Was he indifferent on the subject reported, thus probably not intending distortion? Did he make statements damaging to himself, thus probably not seeking to distort? Did he give incidental or casual information, almost certainly not intended to
195:
demonstrated how serial reproduction of a story distorted accuracy in recalling information. He told participants a complicated Native
American story and had them repeat it over a series of intervals. With each repetition, the stories were altered. Even when participants recalled accurate
158:
Source monitoring refers to the hypothetical cognitive processes by which people identify the sources of their recollections. "Most of the time, source monitoring attributions are performed very rapidly and without phenomenal awareness of decision making. Sometimes, however, these rapid,
402:
How well could the eyewitness observe the thing he reports? Were his senses equal to the observation? Was his physical location suitable to sight, hearing, touch? Did he have the proper social ability to observe: did he understand the language, have other expertise required (e.g., law,
319:
While some analysis of police interviewing technique reveals this change towards CI interviewing is not put into effect by many officials in the US and the U.K., it is still considered to be the most effective means of decreasing error in eyewitness testimony.
187:
Many of the early studies of memory demonstrated how memories can fail to be accurate records of experiences. Because jurors and judges do not have access to the original event, it is important to know whether a testimony is based on actual experience or not.
824:
Wylie, L. E.; Patihis, L.; McCuller, L. L.; Davis, D.; Brank, E. M.; Loftus, E. F.; Bornstein, B. H. (2014). "Misinformation effects in older versus younger adults: A meta-analysis and review". In Toglia, M. P.; Ross, D. F.; Pozzulo, J.; Pica, E. (eds.).
215:
period, unless the information stood out as being extremely unusual. The use of schemas has been shown to increase the accuracy of recall of schema-consistent information but this comes at the cost of decreased recall of schema-inconsistent information.
362:
Composing the lineup is straight forward. If the suspect is in the lineup, the goal is to make he/she blend in with the people next to them. All people chosen to participate in the lineup should look like the initial descriptions of eyewitnesses.
87:. Source misattribution occurs when a witness is mistaken about where or when they have the memory from. If a witness identification of the source of their retrieved memory turns out to be mistaken, then the witness will be considered unreliable.
210:
instincts, interests and ideas peculiar to any given subject. Thus if, as in some pathological cases, these active sources of the ‘schemata’ get cut off from one another, the peculiar personal attributes of what is remembered fail to appear.
379:
The lineup procedure should be documented by any means available. Most commonly video surveillance is used during the procedure. In some instances it may be helpful to have written documents providing descriptions of the procedure.
332:
has been gaining notoriety for its work within the judicial system providing help in exonerating those who have been wrongfully accused of various crimes. To do their part, the following are specific ways that they have suggested
345:
A blind administrator lineup setting is where the person administering the lineup, i.e. an officer, does not know who the suspect actually is. By doing this, the officer is unable to give verbal indication to the eyewitness.
205:
experience. The common use of these schemas suggests that memory is not an identical reproduction of experience, but a combination of actual events with already existing schemas. Bartlett summarized this issue, explaining
234:
to great lengths to provide support for her arguments. She mainly focuses on the integration of misinformation with the original memory, forming a new memory. Some of her most convincing experiments support this claim:
243:
a juror to quickly accuse, and perhaps wrongly accuse, choosing to utilize expert psychological testimony causes the juror to critically appraise the eyewitness testimony, instead of quickly reaching a faulty verdict.
278:
recorded how the phrasing of questioning during an investigation could alter witness response. Binet believed people were highly susceptible to suggestion, and called for a better approach to questioning witnesses.
46:
In the 1970s and '80s, Bob
Buckhout showed, inter alia, that eyewitness conditions can, within ethical and other constraints, be simulated on university campuses, and that large numbers of people can be mistaken.
303:
Law enforcement, legal professions, and psychologists have worked together in attempts to make eyewitness testimony more reliable and accurate. Geiselman, Fisher, MacKinnon, and
Holland saw much improvement in
98:"Jurors" often appear to correlate the confidence level of the witness with the accuracy of their testimony. An overview of this research by Laub and Bornstein shows this to be an inaccurate gauge of accuracy.
150:
In addition, a recent meta-analysis found that older adults (over age 65) tend to be more susceptible to memory distortion brought about by misleading post-event information, compared to young adults.
354:
Instructions can be key for eyewitness identifications. Proper instructions, such as telling them it is okay to not identify anyone, should be given before eyewitnesses try to identify an individual.
1335:
Carlson, Curt A.; Dias, Jennifer L.; Weatherford, Dawn R.; Carlson, Maria A. "An
Investigation of the Weapon Focus Effect and the Confidence-Accuracy Relationship for Eyewitness Identification".
59:
be remembered will likely be diminished, because the ability to observe carefully, completely, accurately and objectively is handicapped by a number of factors constituent to the incident:
396:
It has been suggested that the jury be given a checklist to evaluate eyewitness testimony when given in court. R. J. Shafer offers this checklist for evaluating eyewitness testimony:
147:
details. Compared to older children, preschool-age children are more likely to fall victim to suggestions without the ability to focus solely on the facts of what happened.
1544:
Libscomb, Thomas; McAllister, Hunter; Bregman, Norman (1985). "Bias in
Eyewitness Accounts: The Effects of Question Format, Delay Interval, and Stimulus Presentation".
73:
Sounds, noises, stress or anxiety induced by the situation, and other distractions; all play a huge role in what our mind is perceiving, processing, and remembering.
90:
While some witnesses see the entirety of a crime happen in front of them, others only witness part of a crime. These latter witnesses are more likely to experience
552:
Memon, A.; Mastroberardino, S.; Fraser, J. (2008). "Münsterberg's Legacy: What Does Eyewitness Research Tell Us About the Reliability of Eyewitness Testimony?".
1084:
1420:
Johnson, C.; Scott, B. "Eyewitness Testimony and Suspect Identification as a Function of Arousal, Sex of Witness and Scheduling of Interrogation".
1350:
Carlson, Curt A.; Carlson, Maria A. (2014). "An evaluation of lineup presentation, weapon presence, and a distinctive feature using ROC analysis".
1675:
Memon, A.; Meissner, C. A.; Fraser, J. (2010). "The cognitive interview: A meta-analytic review and study space analysis of the past 25 years".
107:
system. Both sets of variables can be manipulated and studied during research, but only system variables can be controlled in actual procedure.
371:
Confidence statements are statements provided by the eyewitness that will tell how confident they were in the choices they made in the lineup.
1517:
Dunning, David; Stern, Lisa Beth (1992). "Examining the Generality of Eyewitness Hypermnesia: A Close Look at Time Delay and Question Type".
287:
with footage taken after impact. Ten months after the event, the researchers interviewed people about the crash. According to theories about
283:
up. If police suggest their own opinions, whether verbal or non-verbal, it can encourage a witness to change their mind or lead to guessing.
1702:
Cutler, Brian (27 August 2009). "Content, form and ethical issues concerning expert psychological testimony on eyewitness identification.".
1571:
Ghetti, S.; Goodman, G. S.; Schaaf, J. M.; Qin, J. (2004). "Issues In Eyewitness Testimony". In O'Donohue, W. T.; Levensky, E. R. (eds.).
1596:
Geiselman, R.; Fisher, Ronald; MacKinnon, David; Holland, Heidi (1986). "Enhancement of eyewitness memory with the cognitive interview".
1310:
35:
Psychologists have probed the reliability of eyewitness testimony since the beginning of the 20th century. One prominent pioneer was
1186:
Loftus, Elizabeth F.; Miller, David G.; Burns, Helen J. (1978). "Semantic integration of verbal information into a visual memory".
79:
A person's memory can be influenced by things seen or heard after a crime has occurred. This distortion is known as the post-event
1772:
1037:
Mori, Naohisa (2008). "Styles of Remembering and Types of Experience: An Experimental Investigation of Reconstructive Memory".
1751:
388:
Experts debate what changes need to occur in the legal process in response to research on inaccuracy of eyewitness testimony.
1143:
867:
834:
588:
1213:
Loftus, Elizabeth F. (1980). "Impact of expert psychological testimony on the unreliability of eyewitness identification".
1711:
1580:
697:
613:
1159:
Tuckey, Michelle Rae; Brewer, Neil (2003). "How Schemas Affect Eyewitness Memory Over Repeated Retrieval Attempts".
1499:
1117:
1828:
1795:
413:
Do his statements seem inherently improbable: e.g., contrary to human nature, or in conflict with what we know?
1248:
Powers, Peter A.; Andriks, Joyce L.; Loftus, Elizabeth F. (1979). "Eyewitness accounts of females and males".
1823:
1782:
196:
information, they filled in gaps with information that would fit their personal experiences. His work showed
1843:
1776:
714:
980:
Tay, Kai Rong; Flavell, Charlotte R.; Cassini, Lindsey; Wimber, Maria; Lee, Jonathan L. C. (2019-02-06).
496:
Wells, G. L.; Memon, A.; Penrod, S. D. (2006). "Eyewitness Evidence: Improving Its Probative Value".
334:
510:
1385:
Loftus, Elizabeth F.; Loftus, Geoffrey R.; Messo, Jane (1987). "Some facts about "weapon focus."".
982:"Postretrieval Relearning Strengthens Hippocampal Memories via Destabilization and Reconsolidation"
431:
84:
1275:
Loftus, Elizabeth F.; Greene, Edith (1980). "Warning: Even memory for faces may be contagious".
505:
1650:
228:
182:
80:
76:
The mechanisms by which flaws enter eyewitness testimony are varied and can be quite subtle.
24:
159:
nonreflective processes fail to identify one or more dimensions of source." Applied to an
8:
1838:
456:
340:
309:
201:
1437:"Armed and attentive: Holding a weapon can bias attentional priorities in scene viewing"
416:
Remember that some types of information are easier to observe and report on than others.
36:
1833:
1613:
1292:
1109:
1062:
1014:
962:
907:
745:
531:
444:
1796:"Supreme Judicial Court Study Group on Eyewitness Evidence Report and Recommendations"
926:
1732:
1707:
1576:
1481:
1458:
1402:
1367:
1296:
1230:
1139:
1101:
1054:
1019:
1001:
954:
946:
911:
899:
863:
830:
806:
749:
737:
733:
693:
609:
584:
523:
519:
468:
329:
305:
192:
160:
122:
91:
1066:
1787:
1684:
1605:
1557:
1553:
1526:
1448:
1394:
1359:
1284:
1257:
1222:
1195:
1168:
1113:
1093:
1046:
1009:
997:
993:
966:
938:
891:
855:
802:
798:
789:
Bruck, Maggie; Ceci, Stephen J. (1999). "The suggestibility of children's memory".
767:
763:
729:
685:
645:
561:
515:
462:
288:
224:
197:
713:
Wright, Daniel B.; Memon, Amina; Skagerberg, Elin M.; Gabbert, Fiona (June 2009).
665:
Tversky, Barbara; Fisher, George (1999). "The Problem with Eyewitness Testimony".
535:
1632:
1363:
859:
850:
Lindsay, D. Stephen (1994), "Memory source monitoring and eyewitness testimony",
453: – Recall of fabricated, misinterpreted or distorted memories (false memory)
1261:
1453:
1436:
1050:
981:
1817:
1462:
1406:
1371:
1311:"The Weapon Focus Effect: Testing An Extension Of The Unusualness Hypothesis"
1226:
1199:
1105:
1005:
950:
903:
895:
741:
450:
1530:
1485:
1058:
1023:
958:
810:
527:
275:
1736:
1234:
689:
1617:
1435:
Biggs, Adam T.; Brockmole, James R.; Witt, Jessica K. (November 2013).
1398:
1288:
650:
633:
69:
Was there anything uncommon or marked about the perpetrator's features?
884:
Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting
1688:
1656:. Ashburn, Virginia: The National Transportation Safety Board Academy
770:(January 2017). "Felt Time: The Psychology of How We Perceive Time".
565:
1609:
1172:
1138:(8th ed.). San Diego: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. p. 383.
942:
882:
Resnick, Marc L. (September 2014). "When Eyewitnesses Misremember".
680:
Laub, Cindy; Bornstein, Brian H. (2008). "Juries and Eyewitnesses".
406:
When did he report in relation to his observation? Soon? Much later?
1773:
Identifying the Culprit: Assessing Eyewitness Identification (2014)
1097:
762:
459: – Using psychological science to help answer legal questions
63:
The time of day – was there enough light to really see the event?
1704:
Expert Testimony on the Psychology of Eyewitness Identification
1595:
1188:
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory
16:
Account a witness gives in the courtroom of what they observed
927:"Memory and law: what can cognitive neuroscience contribute?"
295:
resulted in an increase in overall estimations of witnesses.
712:
374:
341:
The "double-blind" procedure or use of a blind administrator
1086:
Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology
551:
1543:
1334:
823:
756:
1731:. New York: Fordham University Press. pp. 157–158.
925:
Schacter, Daniel L.; Loftus, Elizabeth F. (2013-01-28).
1575:. San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press. p. 532.
979:
1630:
1570:
1706:. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 29–50.
1779:
summarizing research and recommending best practices
308:
with an interview procedure they referred to as the
1674:
1352:
Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition
1337:
Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition
1247:
1633:"Eyewitness Evidence: A Guide for Law Enforcement"
1434:
1092:. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
1039:Integrative Psychological & Behavioral Science
603:
1752:"In New Jersey, Rules Are Changed on Witness IDs"
1651:"The cognitive interview: Question & answers"
1506:. A&E Television Networks. November 13, 2009.
1384:
1185:
298:
142:Among children, suggestibility can be very high.
1815:
495:
419:Are there inner contradictions in the testimony?
1349:
924:
854:, Cambridge University Press, pp. 27–55,
547:
545:
447: – Evidence relying on personal testimony
679:
664:
164:to recognize the source of that information.
1516:
1274:
1158:
498:Psychological Science in the Public Interest
1695:
1078:
1076:
722:Current Directions in Psychological Science
604:Scheck, B.; Neufeld, P.; Dwyer, J. (2000).
542:
1441:Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics
583:. New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
66:Crowd density (or existence) at the scene;
1726:
1452:
1013:
788:
649:
578:
509:
465: – Psychological research of the law
375:The lineup procedure should be documented
1783:Evidence-based justice: Corrupted memory
1419:
1082:
1073:
631:
435:and lower the rate of false conviction.
366:
218:
176:
1500:"Plane crashes into apartment building"
881:
849:
684:. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications.
491:
489:
487:
485:
357:
264:
1816:
1749:
1648:
1318:Applied Psychology in Criminal Justice
1212:
269:
110:
1475:
634:"Nearly 2,000 witnesses can be wrong"
383:
274:As early as 1900, psychologists like
1133:
1036:
627:
625:
482:
323:
153:
128:
115:
1750:Weiser, Benjamin (25 August 2011).
638:Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society
425:
13:
1677:Psychology, Public Policy, and Law
1422:American Psychological Association
682:Encyclopedia of Psychology and Law
581:A Conceptual History of Psychology
391:
167:
14:
1855:
1766:
667:Stanford Journal of Legal Studies
622:
200:to be adaptable. Bartlett viewed
137:
1701:
734:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01631.x
520:10.1111/j.1529-1006.2006.00027.x
255:
1775:- free download of book by the
1743:
1720:
1668:
1642:
1624:
1589:
1573:Handbook of Forensic Psychology
1564:
1537:
1510:
1492:
1469:
1428:
1413:
1378:
1343:
1328:
1303:
1268:
1241:
1206:
1179:
1152:
1127:
1030:
973:
918:
875:
843:
827:The Elderly Eyewitness in Court
817:
782:
349:
1727:Garraghan, Gilbert J. (1946).
1598:American Journal of Psychology
1558:10.1080/00223980.1985.10542888
1480:(in French). Paris: Reinwald.
998:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2618-18.2018
829:. New York: Psychology Press.
803:10.1146/annurev.psych.50.1.419
706:
673:
658:
597:
572:
299:Improving eyewitness testimony
121:perspective. This can lead to
30:
1:
1250:Journal of Applied Psychology
1215:Journal of Applied Psychology
475:
1777:National Academy of Sciences
1729:A Guide to Historical Method
1631:U.S. Department of Justice.
1519:Applied Cognitive Psychology
1364:10.1016/j.jarmac.2014.03.004
1161:Applied Cognitive Psychology
860:10.1017/cbo9780511759192.003
554:Applied Cognitive Psychology
7:
579:Greenwood, John D. (2009).
438:
101:
39:, whose controversial book
10:
1860:
1262:10.1037/0021-9010.64.3.339
852:Adult Eyewitness Testimony
608:. New York: Random House.
328:Over the last decade, the
222:
180:
1546:The Journal of Psychology
1454:10.3758/s13414-013-0538-6
1134:Reed, Stephen K. (2010).
1051:10.1007/s12124-008-9068-5
335:eyewitness identification
1227:10.1037/0021-9010.65.1.9
1200:10.1037/0278-7393.4.1.19
1083:Bartlett, F. C. (1932).
896:10.1177/1541931214581112
715:"When Eyewitnesses Talk"
432:New Jersey Supreme Court
986:Journal of Neuroscience
1649:Fisher, R. P. (2005).
1531:10.1002/acp.2350060707
1476:Binet, Alfred (1900).
1387:Law and Human Behavior
1277:Law and Human Behavior
337:can be more reliable.
212:
1829:Philosophy of science
690:10.4135/9781412959537
632:Buckhout, R. (1980).
471: – Legal defense
367:Confidence statements
229:Misinformation effect
219:Misinformation effect
207:
183:Reconstructive memory
177:Reconstructive memory
81:misinformation effect
1824:Cognitive psychology
358:Composing the lineup
265:Systematic variables
41:On the Witness Stand
25:cognitive psychology
20:Eyewitness testimony
1844:Works about history
931:Nature Neuroscience
457:Forensic psychology
310:cognitive interview
270:Type of questioning
111:Estimator variables
1756:The New York Times
1399:10.1007/BF01044839
1289:10.1007/BF01040624
791:Annu. Rev. Psychol
772:Skeptical Inquirer
651:10.3758/BF03329551
445:Anecdotal evidence
384:Procedural reforms
191:In a 1932 study,
161:eyewitness' memory
1478:La Suggestibilite
1145:978-0-495-80668-4
869:978-0-521-43255-9
836:978-1-84872-613-0
768:Frazier, Kendrick
764:Radford, Benjamin
590:978-0-07-285862-4
469:Mistaken identity
330:Innocence Project
324:Innocence Project
306:eyewitness memory
251:not been present.
193:Frederic Bartlett
154:Source monitoring
129:Short-term memory
123:memory conformity
116:Memory conformity
92:confirmation bias
1851:
1809:
1807:
1806:
1800:
1760:
1759:
1747:
1741:
1740:
1724:
1718:
1717:
1699:
1693:
1692:
1689:10.1037/a0020518
1672:
1666:
1665:
1663:
1661:
1655:
1646:
1640:
1639:
1637:
1628:
1622:
1621:
1593:
1587:
1586:
1568:
1562:
1561:
1541:
1535:
1534:
1514:
1508:
1507:
1496:
1490:
1489:
1473:
1467:
1466:
1456:
1447:(8): 1715–1724.
1432:
1426:
1425:
1417:
1411:
1410:
1382:
1376:
1375:
1347:
1341:
1340:
1332:
1326:
1325:
1315:
1307:
1301:
1300:
1272:
1266:
1265:
1245:
1239:
1238:
1210:
1204:
1203:
1183:
1177:
1176:
1156:
1150:
1149:
1131:
1125:
1124:
1122:
1116:. Archived from
1091:
1080:
1071:
1070:
1034:
1028:
1027:
1017:
992:(6): 1109–1118.
977:
971:
970:
922:
916:
915:
879:
873:
872:
847:
841:
840:
821:
815:
814:
786:
780:
779:
760:
754:
753:
719:
710:
704:
703:
677:
671:
670:
662:
656:
655:
653:
629:
620:
619:
606:Actual Innocence
601:
595:
594:
576:
570:
569:
566:10.1002/acp.1487
549:
540:
539:
513:
493:
463:Legal psychology
426:Judge guidelines
289:flashbulb memory
225:Elizabeth Loftus
198:long-term memory
37:Hugo Münsterberg
1859:
1858:
1854:
1853:
1852:
1850:
1849:
1848:
1814:
1813:
1810:(Massachusetts)
1804:
1802:
1798:
1794:
1769:
1764:
1763:
1748:
1744:
1725:
1721:
1714:
1700:
1696:
1673:
1669:
1659:
1657:
1653:
1647:
1643:
1635:
1629:
1625:
1610:10.2307/1422492
1594:
1590:
1583:
1569:
1565:
1542:
1538:
1515:
1511:
1498:
1497:
1493:
1474:
1470:
1433:
1429:
1418:
1414:
1383:
1379:
1348:
1344:
1333:
1329:
1313:
1309:
1308:
1304:
1273:
1269:
1246:
1242:
1211:
1207:
1184:
1180:
1173:10.1002/acp.906
1157:
1153:
1146:
1132:
1128:
1120:
1089:
1081:
1074:
1035:
1031:
978:
974:
943:10.1038/nn.3294
923:
919:
880:
876:
870:
848:
844:
837:
822:
818:
787:
783:
761:
757:
717:
711:
707:
700:
678:
674:
663:
659:
630:
623:
616:
602:
598:
591:
577:
573:
550:
543:
511:10.1.1.126.6916
494:
483:
478:
441:
428:
394:
392:Jury guidelines
386:
377:
369:
360:
352:
343:
326:
301:
272:
267:
258:
231:
223:Main articles:
221:
185:
179:
170:
168:Reconsolidation
156:
140:
131:
118:
113:
104:
33:
17:
12:
11:
5:
1857:
1847:
1846:
1841:
1836:
1831:
1826:
1812:
1811:
1792:
1780:
1768:
1767:External links
1765:
1762:
1761:
1742:
1719:
1712:
1694:
1683:(4): 340–372.
1667:
1641:
1623:
1604:(3): 385–401.
1588:
1581:
1563:
1552:(3): 207–212.
1536:
1525:(7): 643–657.
1509:
1491:
1468:
1427:
1412:
1377:
1342:
1327:
1302:
1283:(4): 323–334.
1267:
1256:(3): 339–347.
1240:
1205:
1178:
1167:(7): 785–800.
1151:
1144:
1126:
1123:on 2018-02-14.
1098:10.1086/399084
1072:
1045:(3): 291–314.
1029:
972:
937:(2): 119–123.
917:
890:(1): 539–543.
874:
868:
842:
835:
816:
781:
755:
728:(3): 174–178.
705:
698:
672:
657:
644:(4): 307–310.
621:
614:
596:
589:
571:
560:(6): 841–851.
541:
480:
479:
477:
474:
473:
472:
466:
460:
454:
448:
440:
437:
427:
424:
423:
422:
421:
420:
417:
414:
411:
407:
404:
393:
390:
385:
382:
376:
373:
368:
365:
359:
356:
351:
348:
342:
339:
325:
322:
300:
297:
271:
268:
266:
263:
257:
254:
253:
252:
248:
244:
240:
220:
217:
181:Main article:
178:
175:
169:
166:
155:
152:
144:Suggestibility
139:
138:Age of witness
136:
130:
127:
117:
114:
112:
109:
103:
100:
85:misattribution
71:
70:
67:
64:
32:
29:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1856:
1845:
1842:
1840:
1837:
1835:
1832:
1830:
1827:
1825:
1822:
1821:
1819:
1797:
1793:
1791:, 14 Aug 2013
1790:
1789:
1784:
1781:
1778:
1774:
1771:
1770:
1757:
1753:
1746:
1738:
1734:
1730:
1723:
1715:
1713:9780195331974
1709:
1705:
1698:
1690:
1686:
1682:
1678:
1671:
1652:
1645:
1634:
1627:
1619:
1615:
1611:
1607:
1603:
1599:
1592:
1584:
1582:0-12-524196-8
1578:
1574:
1567:
1559:
1555:
1551:
1547:
1540:
1532:
1528:
1524:
1520:
1513:
1505:
1501:
1495:
1487:
1483:
1479:
1472:
1464:
1460:
1455:
1450:
1446:
1442:
1438:
1431:
1423:
1416:
1408:
1404:
1400:
1396:
1392:
1388:
1381:
1373:
1369:
1365:
1361:
1357:
1353:
1346:
1338:
1331:
1323:
1319:
1312:
1306:
1298:
1294:
1290:
1286:
1282:
1278:
1271:
1263:
1259:
1255:
1251:
1244:
1236:
1232:
1228:
1224:
1220:
1216:
1209:
1201:
1197:
1193:
1189:
1182:
1174:
1170:
1166:
1162:
1155:
1147:
1141:
1137:
1130:
1119:
1115:
1111:
1107:
1103:
1099:
1095:
1088:
1087:
1079:
1077:
1068:
1064:
1060:
1056:
1052:
1048:
1044:
1040:
1033:
1025:
1021:
1016:
1011:
1007:
1003:
999:
995:
991:
987:
983:
976:
968:
964:
960:
956:
952:
948:
944:
940:
936:
932:
928:
921:
913:
909:
905:
901:
897:
893:
889:
885:
878:
871:
865:
861:
857:
853:
846:
838:
832:
828:
820:
812:
808:
804:
800:
796:
792:
785:
777:
773:
769:
765:
759:
751:
747:
743:
739:
735:
731:
727:
723:
716:
709:
701:
699:9781412951890
695:
691:
687:
683:
676:
668:
661:
652:
647:
643:
639:
635:
628:
626:
617:
615:0-451-20365-8
611:
607:
600:
592:
586:
582:
575:
567:
563:
559:
555:
548:
546:
537:
533:
529:
525:
521:
517:
512:
507:
503:
499:
492:
490:
488:
486:
481:
470:
467:
464:
461:
458:
455:
452:
451:Confabulation
449:
446:
443:
442:
436:
433:
430:In 2011, the
418:
415:
412:
408:
405:
401:
400:
399:
398:
397:
389:
381:
372:
364:
355:
347:
338:
336:
331:
321:
317:
313:
311:
307:
296:
292:
290:
284:
280:
277:
262:
256:Weapons focus
249:
245:
241:
237:
236:
235:
230:
226:
216:
211:
206:
203:
199:
194:
189:
184:
174:
165:
162:
151:
148:
145:
135:
126:
124:
108:
99:
95:
93:
88:
86:
82:
77:
74:
68:
65:
62:
61:
60:
58:
52:
48:
44:
42:
38:
28:
26:
21:
1803:. Retrieved
1801:. 2013-07-25
1786:
1755:
1745:
1728:
1722:
1703:
1697:
1680:
1676:
1670:
1658:. Retrieved
1644:
1626:
1601:
1597:
1591:
1572:
1566:
1549:
1545:
1539:
1522:
1518:
1512:
1503:
1494:
1477:
1471:
1444:
1440:
1430:
1421:
1415:
1393:(1): 55–62.
1390:
1386:
1380:
1358:(2): 45–53.
1355:
1351:
1345:
1336:
1330:
1321:
1317:
1305:
1280:
1276:
1270:
1253:
1249:
1243:
1218:
1214:
1208:
1194:(1): 19–31.
1191:
1187:
1181:
1164:
1160:
1154:
1135:
1129:
1118:the original
1085:
1042:
1038:
1032:
989:
985:
975:
934:
930:
920:
887:
883:
877:
851:
845:
826:
819:
794:
790:
784:
775:
771:
758:
725:
721:
708:
681:
675:
666:
660:
641:
637:
605:
599:
580:
574:
557:
553:
504:(2): 45–75.
501:
497:
429:
395:
387:
378:
370:
361:
353:
350:Instructions
344:
327:
318:
314:
302:
293:
285:
281:
276:Alfred Binet
273:
259:
232:
213:
208:
190:
186:
171:
157:
149:
143:
141:
132:
119:
105:
96:
89:
78:
75:
72:
56:
53:
49:
45:
40:
34:
19:
18:
1504:History.com
1221:(1): 9–15.
778:(1): 60–61.
669:. Stanford.
31:Reliability
1839:Eyewitness
1818:Categories
1805:2014-09-29
1324:(2). 2016.
797:: 419–39.
476:References
403:military)?
1834:Testimony
1463:1943-393X
1407:1573-661X
1372:2211-369X
1297:146947540
1136:Cognition
1106:186951776
1006:0270-6474
951:1097-6256
912:145687882
904:1541-9312
750:145546010
742:0963-7214
506:CiteSeerX
1660:June 13,
1067:22635323
1059:18654824
1024:30587543
959:23354384
811:10074684
528:26158855
439:See also
410:mislead?
102:Research
1618:1422492
1486:1081252
1235:7364708
1114:7992164
1015:6363934
967:3753345
202:schemas
1788:Nature
1737:222942
1735:
1710:
1616:
1579:
1484:
1461:
1405:
1370:
1295:
1233:
1142:
1112:
1104:
1065:
1057:
1022:
1012:
1004:
965:
957:
949:
910:
902:
866:
833:
809:
748:
740:
696:
612:
587:
536:577435
534:
526:
508:
1799:(PDF)
1654:(PDF)
1636:(PDF)
1614:JSTOR
1314:(PDF)
1293:S2CID
1121:(PDF)
1110:S2CID
1090:(PDF)
1063:S2CID
963:S2CID
908:S2CID
746:S2CID
718:(PDF)
532:S2CID
57:could
1733:OCLC
1708:ISBN
1662:2006
1577:ISBN
1482:OCLC
1459:ISSN
1403:ISSN
1368:ISSN
1231:PMID
1140:ISBN
1102:OCLC
1055:PMID
1020:PMID
1002:ISSN
955:PMID
947:ISSN
900:ISSN
864:ISBN
831:ISBN
807:PMID
738:ISSN
694:ISBN
610:ISBN
585:ISBN
524:PMID
227:and
1685:doi
1606:doi
1554:doi
1550:119
1527:doi
1449:doi
1395:doi
1360:doi
1285:doi
1258:doi
1223:doi
1196:doi
1169:doi
1094:doi
1047:doi
1010:PMC
994:doi
939:doi
892:doi
856:doi
799:doi
730:doi
686:doi
646:doi
562:doi
516:doi
1820::
1785:,
1754:.
1681:16
1679:.
1612:.
1602:99
1600:.
1548:.
1521:.
1502:.
1457:.
1445:75
1443:.
1439:.
1401:.
1391:11
1389:.
1366:.
1354:.
1322:12
1320:.
1316:.
1291:.
1279:.
1254:64
1252:.
1229:.
1219:65
1217:.
1190:.
1165:17
1163:.
1108:.
1100:.
1075:^
1061:.
1053:.
1043:42
1041:.
1018:.
1008:.
1000:.
990:39
988:.
984:.
961:.
953:.
945:.
935:16
933:.
929:.
906:.
898:.
888:58
886:.
862:,
805:.
795:50
793:.
776:41
774:.
766:;
744:.
736:.
726:18
724:.
720:.
692:.
642:16
640:.
636:.
624:^
558:22
556:.
544:^
530:.
522:.
514:.
500:.
484:^
27:.
1808:.
1758:.
1739:.
1716:.
1691:.
1687::
1664:.
1638:.
1620:.
1608::
1585:.
1560:.
1556::
1533:.
1529::
1523:6
1488:.
1465:.
1451::
1424:.
1409:.
1397::
1374:.
1362::
1356:3
1339:.
1299:.
1287::
1281:4
1264:.
1260::
1237:.
1225::
1202:.
1198::
1192:4
1175:.
1171::
1148:.
1096::
1069:.
1049::
1026:.
996::
969:.
941::
914:.
894::
858::
839:.
813:.
801::
752:.
732::
702:.
688::
654:.
648::
618:.
593:.
568:.
564::
538:.
518::
502:7
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.