Toward a more informative psychological science of eyewitness evidence

Applied Cognitive Psychology

Volumn 22, Issue 6, 2008, Pages 769-778

  Turtle, John ^a   Read, J Don ^b   Lindsay, D Stephen ^c   Brimacombe, C A Elizabeth ^c  

^a RYERSON UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COGNITION; COURT; CRIMINAL JUSTICE; CRIMINOLOGY; DESCRIPTIVE RESEARCH; EMPIRICAL RESEARCH; EXPERT WITNESS; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL; INFORMATION SCIENCE; LAW ENFORCEMENT; LEGAL ASPECT; LEGAL EVIDENCE; LONG TERM MEMORY; POLICE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBLEM SOLVING; PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORY; PSYCHOLOGIST;

EID: 53849134896     PISSN: 08884080     EISSN: 10990720     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/acp.1481     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Benton, T. R., Ross, D. F., Bradshaw, E., Thomas, W. N., & Bradshaw, G. S. (2006). Eyewitness memory is still not common sense: Comparing jurors, judges, and law enforcement to eyewitness experts. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 115-130.
2. Brewer, N., Weber, N., & Semmler, C. (2007). A role for theory in eyewitness research. In R. C. L. Lindsay, D. F. Ross, J. D. Read, & M. P. Toglia (Eds.), The handbook of eyewitness psychology: Memory for people (Vol. II, pp. 201-218). Mahwah, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
3. Brodsky, S. (1999). The expert witness: More maxims and guidelines for testifying in court. Washington, D.C.: APA Books.
4. Devenport, J. L., Penrod, S. D., & Cutler, B. L. (1997). Eyewitness identification evidence: Evaluating commonsense evaluations. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 3, 338-361.
5. Doyle, J. M. (2005). True witness: Cops, courts, science, and the battle against misidentification. New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan.
6. Doyle, J. M. (2007). Giving psychology away to lawyers. In R. C. L. Lindsay, D. F. Ross, J. D. Read, & M. P. Toglia (Eds.), The handbook of eyewitness psychology: Memory for people (Vol. II, pp. 573-582). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
7. Greene, E., Heilbrun, K., Fortune, W., & Neitzel, M. (2007). Wrightsman's psychology and the legal system (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson.
8. Illinois Pilot Report. (2006). Report to the Illinois legislature: Illinois pilot program on sequential. double-blind lineup procedures. www.il.state.us.gov; www.chicagopolice.org
9. Kassin, S. M., & Barndollar, K. A. (1992). The psychology of eyewitness testimony: A comparison of experts and prospective jurors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 1241-1249.
10. Kassin, S. M., Ellsworth, P. C., & Smith, V. L. (1989). The "general acceptance" of psychological research on eyewitness testimony: A survey of the experts. American Psychologist, 44, 1089-1098.
11. Kassin, S. M., Tubb, V. A., Hosch, H., & Memon, A. (2001). On the "general acceptance" of eyewitness testimony research. American Psychologist, 56, 405-416.
12. Lieberman, J. D., & Sales, B. D. (2007). Scientific jury selection. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
13. Lindsay, D. S. (2008). Source monitoring. In H. L. Roediger, III (Ed.), Cognitive psychology of memory. Vol. 2 of Learning and memory: A comprehensive reference, 4 vols. (J. Byrne, Ed.). (pp. 325-348). Oxford: Elsevier.
14. Loftus, E., Loftus. G., & Messo, J. (1987). Some facts about 'weapon focus'. Law and Human Behavior, 11, 55-62.
15. MacLin, O., & Malpass, R. S. (2003). Last but not least: The ambiguous race face illusion. Perception, 32, 249-252.
16. McCloskey, M., Egeth, H., & McKenna, J. (1986). The experimental psychologist in court: The ethics of expert testimony. Law and Human Behavior, 10, 1-13.
17. Mecklenburg, S., Bailey, P. J., & Larson, M. R. (2008). The Illinois field study: A significant contribution to understanding real world eyewitness identification issues. Law and Human Behavior, 32, 22-27.
18. Münsterberg, H. (1908). On the witness stand. New York: McClure.
19. Ross, S. J., & Malpass, R. S. (2008). Moving forward: Response to "studying eyewitness investigations in the field. Law and Human Behavior, 32, 16-21.
20. Schacter, D. L., Dawes, R., Jacoby, L. L., Kahneman, D., Lempert, R., Roediger, H. L., et al. (2008). Policy forum: Studying eyewitness investigations in the field. Law and Human Behavior, 32, 3-5.
21. Steblay, N. (2008). Commentary on "studying eyewitness investigations in the field": A look forward. Law and Human Behavior, 32, 11-15.
22. U.S. National Institute of Justice. (1999). Eyewitness evidence. A guide for law enforcement. Washington, DC: US National Institute of Justice.
23. Wells, G. L. (1978). Applied eyewitness testimony research: System variables and estimator variables. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1545-1557.
24. Wells, G. L. (2008). Field experiments on eyewitness identification: Towards a better understanding of pitfalls and prospects. Law and Human Behavior, 32, 6-10.
25. Wells, G. L., & Loftus, E. F. (2003). Eyewitness memory for people and events. In A. M. Goldstein (Ed.), Handbook of psychology: Forensic psychology (Vol. 11, pp. 149-160). New York: Wiley.
26. Wells, G. L., & Olson, E. A. (2002). Eyewitness identification: Information gain from incriminating and exonerating behaviors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 8, 155-167.
27. Wells, G. L., & Turtle, J. W. (1986). Eyewitness identification: The importance of lineup models. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 320-329.
28. Wigmore, J. H. (1909). Professor Münsterberg and the psychology of testimony. Illinois Law Review, 3, 399-445.
29. Wise, R. A., & Safer, M. A. (2004). What US judges know and believe about eyewitness testimony. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18, 427-443.
30. Wise, R. A., Meyer, D., Pawlenko, N. B., & Safer, M. (2007). A survey of defense attorneys' knowledge and beliefs about eyewitness testimony. The Champion, 18.