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