|
|||||
|
|
Policy Forum: Studying Eyewitness Investigations in the Field |
|
| Authors: | Daniel L. Schacter Robyn Dawes Larry L. Jacoby Daniel Kahneman Richard Lempert Henry L. Roediger Robert Rosenthal |
| Affiliation: | (1) Department of Psychology, Harvard University, William James Hall, 33 Kirkland Street, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA;(2) Carnegie Mellon University, 208 Porter Hall, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA;(3) Department of Psychology, Washington University, One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO 63130-4899, USA;(4) Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544-1013, USA;(5) University of Michigan, School of Law, 625 South State Street, 412 Hutchins Hall, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA;(6) Department of Psychology, University of California-Riverside, 900 University Ave, Riverside, CA 92521, USA |
| Abstract: | 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. |
| Keywords: | Eyewitness identification Double blind sequential procedure Field studies |
| 本文献已被 PubMed SpringerLink 等数据库收录！ | |