Process versus content in eyewitness metamemory monitoring

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied

Volumn 6, Issue 3, 2000, Pages 207-221

  Robinson, Michael D ^a   Johnson, Joel T ^b   Robertson, David A ^c,d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

^d GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; CRIME; HUMAN; MEMORY; RANDOMIZATION; REACTION TIME; RECALL;

CRIME; CUES; HUMANS; MEMORY; MENTAL RECALL; RANDOM ALLOCATION; REACTION TIME;

EID: 0034266216     PISSN: 1076898X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/1076-898X.6.3.207     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 51, 1173-1182.
2. Begg, I., Duft, S., Lalonde, P., Melnick, R., & Sanvito, J. (1989). Memory predictions are based on ease of processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 610-632.
3. Bell, B. E., & Loftus, E. F. (1989). Trivial persuasion in the courtroom: The power of (a few) minor details. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 669-679.
4. Benjamin, A. S., & Bjork, R. A. (1996). Retrieval fluency as a metacognitive index. In L. Reder (Ed.), Implicit memory and metacognition (pp. 309-338). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
5. Benjamin, A. S., Bjork, R. A., & Schwanz, B. L. (1998). The mismeasure of memory: When retrieval fluency is misleading as a metamemory index. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127, 55-68.
6. Bothwell, R. K., Deffenbacher, K. A., & Brigham, J. C. (1987). Predicting eyewitness accuracy from confidence: The optimality hypothesis revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 691-695.
7. Brandon, R., & Davies, C. (1973). Wrongful imprisonment. London: Allen & Unwin.
8. Brown, J. (1976). An analysis of recognition and recall and of problems in their comparison. In J. Brown (Ed.), Recall and recognition (pp. 1-35). New York: Wiley.
9. Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Stuve, T. E. (1988). Jury decision making in eyewitness identification cases. Law and Human Behavior, 12, 41-56.
10. Dewhurst, S. A., & Conway, M. A. (1994). Pictures, images, and recollective experience. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 1088-1098.
11. Dunning, D., & Stem, L. B. (1994). Distinguishing accurate from inaccurate eyewitness identifications via inquiries about decision processes. Journal of Personality of Social Psychology, 67, 818-835.
12. Dyne, A. M., Humphreys, M. S., Bain, J. D., & Pike, R. (1990). Associative interference effects in recognition and recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 813-824.
13. Fisher, R. P., Geiselman, R. E., & Raymond, D. S. (1987). Critical analysis of police interview techniques. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 15, 177-185.