title: Policy forum: studying eyewitness investigations in the field.
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.
authors.affiliation: Department of Psychology, Harvard University, William James Hall, 33 Kirkland Street, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA. dls@wjh.harvard.edu
authors.forename: Daniel L
authors.initials: DL
authors.lastname: Schacter
authors.forename: Robyn
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Dawes
authors.forename: Larry L
authors.initials: LL
authors.lastname: Jacoby
authors.forename: Daniel
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Kahneman
authors.forename: Richard
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Lempert
authors.forename: Henry L
authors.initials: HL
authors.lastname: Roediger
authors.forename: Robert
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Rosenthal
mesh_terms: D019548:Crime Victims; D004059:Diffusion of Innovation; D004311:Double-Blind Method; D006801:Humans; D016495:Police; D021641:Recognition, Psychology; D014481:United States