Policy Forum: Studying Eyewitness Investigations in the Field

Policy Forum: Studying Eyewitness Investigations in the Field

DSpace/Manakin Repository

Policy Forum: Studying Eyewitness Investigations in the Field

dc.contributor.author	Dawes, Robyn
dc.contributor.author	Jacoby, Larry L.
dc.contributor.author	Kahneman, Daniel
dc.contributor.author	Lempert, Richard
dc.contributor.author	Roediger, Henry L.
dc.contributor.author	Schacter, Daniel L.
dc.contributor.author	Rosenthal, Robert
dc.date.accessioned	2010-09-30T14:54:20Z
dc.date.issued	2007
dc.identifier.citation	Schacter, Daniel L., Robyn Dawes, Larry L. Jacoby, Daniel Kahneman, Richard Lempert, Henry L. Roediger, and Robert Rosenthal. 2007. Policy Forum: Studying Eyewitness Investigations in the Field. Law and Human Behavior 32(1): 3-5.	en_US
dc.identifier.issn	0147-7307	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:4454187
dc.description.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.	en_US
dc.description.sponsorship	Psychology	en_US
dc.language.iso	en_US	en_US
dc.publisher	Springer Verlag	en_US
dc.relation.isversionof	doi:10.1007/s10979-007-9093-9	en_US
dc.relation.hasversion	http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2175020/pdf/	en_US
dash.license	LAA
dc.title	Policy Forum: Studying Eyewitness Investigations in the Field	en_US
dc.type	Journal Article	en_US
dc.description.version	Version of Record	en_US
dc.relation.journal	Law and Human Behavior	en_US
dash.depositing.author	Schacter, Daniel L.
dc.date.available	2010-09-30T14:54:20Z