Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorSchacter, Daniel L.
dc.contributor.authorDawes, Robyn
dc.contributor.authorJacoby, Larry L.
dc.contributor.authorKahneman, Daniel
dc.contributor.authorLempert, Richard
dc.contributor.authorRoediger, Henry L.
dc.contributor.authorRosenthal, Robert
dc.date.accessioned2010-09-30T14:54:20Z
dc.date.issued2007
dc.identifier.citationSchacter, 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.issn0147-7307en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:4454187
dc.description.abstractThis 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.sponsorshipPsychologyen_US
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.publisherSpringer Verlagen_US
dc.relation.isversionofdoi:10.1007/s10979-007-9093-9en_US
dc.relation.hasversionhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2175020/pdf/en_US
dash.licenseLAA
dc.titlePolicy Forum: Studying Eyewitness Investigations in the Fielden_US
dc.typeJournal Articleen_US
dc.description.versionVersion of Recorden_US
dc.relation.journalLaw and Human Behavioren_US
dash.depositing.authorSchacter, Daniel L.
dc.date.available2010-09-30T14:54:20Z
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s10979-007-9093-9*
dash.contributor.affiliatedSchacter, Daniel
dash.contributor.affiliatedRosenthal, Robert


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record