A 'middle road' approach to bridging the basic-applied divide in eyewitness identification research

Applied Cognitive Psychology

Volumn 22, Issue 6, 2008, Pages 779-787

  Lane, Sean M ^a   Meissner, Christian A ^b  

^a LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT EL PASO   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; APPLIED RESEARCH; ARTICLE; BASIC RESEARCH; COGNITION; CRIMINAL LAW; CRIMINOLOGY; EPISODIC MEMORY; EXPERT WITNESS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORY; SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY;

EID: 53849142941     PISSN: 08884080     EISSN: 10990720     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/acp.1482     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Anderson, R. C., & Pichert, J. W. (1978). Recall of previously unrecallable information following a shift in perspective. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17, 1-12.
2. Banaji, M. R., & Crowder, R. G. (1989). The bankruptcy of everyday memory. American Psychologist, 44, 1185-1193.
3. Banaji, M. R., & Crowder, R. G. (1994). Experimentation and its discontents. In P. E. Morris, & M. Gruneberg (Eds.), Theoretical aspects of memory (2nd ed., pp. 296-308). New York: Routledge.
4. Brewer, N., & Weber, N. (2008). Eyewitness confidence and latency: Indices of memory processes not just markers of accuracy. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 827-840. DOI: 10.1002/acp.1486
5. Brewer, N., Weber, N., & Semmler, C. (2007). A role for theory in eyewitness identification research. In R. C. L. Lindsay, D. F. Ross, J. D. Read, & M. Toglia (Eds.), Handbook of eyewitness psychology: Memory for people (Vol. 2, pp. 210-218). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
6. Cacioppo, J. T. (2007). The rise in collaborative psychological science. APS Observer, 20, 1-2.
7. Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81-105.
8. Christiaansen, R. E., & Ochalek, K. (1983). Editing misleading information from memory: Evidence for the coexistence of original and postevent information. Memory & Cognition, 11, 467-475.
9. Clark, S. E. (2003). A memory and decision model for eyewitness identification. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 629-654.
10. Clark, S. E. (2008). The importance (necessity) of computational modelling for eyewitness identification research. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 803-813. DOI:10.1002/acp.1484
11. Cohen, G. (1989). Memory in the real world. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
12. Collins, A. M., & Quillian, M. R. (1969). Retrieval time from semantic memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 8, 240-248.
13. Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation. Design and analysis issues for field settings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
14. Dunbar, K., & Blanchette, I. (2001). The in vivo/in vitro approach to cognition: The case of analogy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5, 334-339.
15. Eakin, D. K., Schreiber, T. A., & Sergent-Marshall, S. (2003). Misinformation effects in eyewitness memory: The presence and absence of memory impairment as a function of warning and misinformation accessibility. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 813-825.
16. Ebbesen, E. B., & Konecni, V. J. (1996). Eyewitness memory research: Probative v. prejudicial value. Expert Evidence, 5, 2-28.
17. Evans, J. R., Marcon, J. L., & Meissner, C. A. (in press). Cross-racial lineup identification: The potential benefits of context reinstatement. Psychology, Crime, & Law.
18. Fisher, R. P., & Geiselman, R. E. (1992). Memory-enhancing techniques for investigative interviewing: The cognitive interview. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.
19. Fisher, R. P., & Schreiber, N. (2007). Interviewing protocols to improve eyewitness memory. In M. Toglia, R. Lindsay, D. Ross, & J. Reed (Eds), The handbook of eyewitness psychology: Memory for events (Vol. 1, pp. 53-80). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
20. Fisher, R. P., Geiselman, R. E., & Amador, M. (1989). Field test of the cognitive interview: Enhancing the recollection of actual victims and witnesses of crime. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 722-727.
21. Garner, W. R., Hake, H. W., & Eriksen, C. W. (1956). Operationism and the concept of perception. Psychological Review, 63, 149-159.
22. Gronlund, S. D. (2005). Sequential lineup advantage: Contributions of distinctiveness and recollection. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 23-37.
23. Haw, R. M., Dickinson, J. J., & Meissner, C. A. (2007). The phenomenology of carryover effects between showup and lineup identification. Memory, 15, 117-127.
24. Hermann, D., & Gruneberg, M. (1993). The need to expand the horizons of the practical aspects of memory movement. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 7, 553-565.
25. Jackiw, L. B., Arbuthnott, K. D., Pfeifer, J. E., Marcon, J. L., & Meissner, C. A. (2008). Examining the cross-race effect in lineup identification using Caucasian and first nations samples. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 40, 52-57.
26. Lane, S. M., Groft, S., Roussel, C. C., & Calamia, M. (2008). It's (sometimes) in the details: Memory for contextual features and eyewitness identification. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society, Jacksonville, FL.
27. Lane, S. M., Roussel, C. C., Villa, D., & Morita, S. (2007). Features and feedback: Enhancing metamnemonic knowledge at retrieval reduces source monitoring errors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 33, 1131-1142.
28. Lindsay, D. S., & Johnson, M. K. (1989). Misleading suggestions can impair eyewitnesses' ability to remember event details. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 16, 1077-1083.
29. Loftus, E. F., Miller, D. G., & Burns, H. G. (1978). Semantic integration of verbal information into a visual memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 4, 19-31.
30. Mathews, R. C., & Lane, S. M. (May 2006). From the lab to the world and back again. Presentation at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Department of Cognitive Science.
31. McCloskey, M., & Glucksberg, S. (1979). Decision processes in verifying category membership statements: Implications for models of semantic memory. Cognitive Psychology, 11, 1-37.
32. Meissner, C. A., Tredoux, C. G., Parker, J. F., & MacLin, O. H. (2005). Eyewitness decisions in simultaneous and sequential lineups: A dual-process signal detection theory analysis. Memory & Cognition, 33, 783-792.
33. Münsterberg, H. (1899). Psychology and history. Psychological Review, 6, 1-31.
34. Neisser, U. (1978). Memory: What are the important questions? In M. M. Gruneberg, P. E. Morris, & R. N. Sykes (Eds), Practical aspects of memory (pp. 3-24). London: Academic Press.
35. Neisser U. (Ed.). (1982). Memory observed. San Francisco: Freeman.
36. Technical Working Group for Eyewitness Evidence. (1999). Eyewitness evidence: A guide for law enforcement. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
37. Tulving, E., & Thomson, D. M. (1973). Encoding specificity and retrieval processes in episodic memory. Psychological Review, 80, 353-373.
38. Turtle, J., Read, J. D., Lindsay, D. S., & Brimacombe, C. A. E. (2008). Toward a more informative psychological science of eyewitness evidence. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 769-778. DOI: 10.1002/ acp.1481
39. Yonelinas, A. P. (2002). The nature of recollection and familiarity: A review of 30 years of research. Journal of Memory & Language, 46, 441-517.
40. Yuille, J. C. (1993). We must study forensic eyewitnesses to know about them. American Psychologist, 48, 572-573.
41. Zaragoza, M. S., & Lane, S. M. (1994). Source misattributions and the suggestibility of eyewitness memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 20, 934-945.