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.

• Publication year

  2007

• Venue

  Law and Human Behavior

• Publication date

  2007-07-04

• Fields of study

  Law, Medicine, Psychology

• Identifiers
  DOI 10.1007/s10979-007-9093-9PMID 17610149PMCID 2175020
• External record

  Open on Semantic Scholar

• Source metadata

  Semantic Scholar, PubMed

• No claims are published for this paper.

• No concepts are published for this paper.

• Notes on the Illinois Pilot Program on Sequential Double-Blind Identification Procedures

  2006cited by this paper
• 1 Observations on the Illinois Lineup Data

  year unknowncited by this paper

• All Is Not As It Seems: Avoidable Pitfalls in the Interpretation of Lineup Field Data

  2018influential citation
• Blended memory: distributed remembering and forgetting through digital photography

  2017cites this paper
• The Case for Double-Blind Lineup Administration

  2017cites this paper
• The characteristics and results of eyewitness identification procedures conducted during robbery investigations in Houston, TX

  2016cites this paper
• Running head : EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY 1 The Reliability of Eyewitness Testimony

  2014cites this paper
• The Reliability of Eyewitness Testimony

  2014cites this paper
• The Neuroscience of Face Processing and Identification in Eyewitnesses and Offenders

  2013cites this paper
• Eyewitness Science and the Call for Double-Blind Lineup Administration

  2013cites this paper
• Field studies of eyewitness memory

  2013cites this paper
• The Criminal Justice System Creates Incentives for False Convictions

  2013cites this paper
• Behavioral Economics and Evidence Law

  2013cites this paper
• Cognitive bias in line-up identifications: the impact of administrator knowledge.

  2013cites this paper
• New Measures for Witnesses: Are They Performing as Anticipated?

  2011influential citation
• What We Know Now: The Evanston Illinois Field Lineups

  2011influential citation
• Predictors of Eyewitness Identification Decisions from Video Lineups in England: A Field Study

  2011cites this paper
• How to Succeed in Criminal Justice Without Really Trying

  2011cites this paper
• Best Practices: How to Evaluate Psychological Science for Use by Organizations.

  2011cites this paper
• Social Psychology and Law

  2010cites this paper
• Interviewing witnesses and victims

  2010cites this paper
• Rational Bias in Forensic Science

  2010cites this paper
• Law and Cognitive Neuroscience

  2010cites this paper
• Instruction Bias and Lineup Presentation Moderate the Effects of Administrator Knowledge on Eyewitness Identification

  2009cites this paper
• Robustness of the sequential lineup advantage.

  2009cites this paper
• Eyewitness identification evidence and innocence risk

  2009cites this paper
• Lineups and Eyewitness Identification

  2009cites this paper
• Toward a more informative psychological science of eyewitness evidence

  2008cites this paper
• The Illinois Field Study: A Significant Contribution to Understanding Real World Eyewitness Identification Issues

  2008influential citation
• Commentary on “Studying Eyewitness Investigations in the Field”: A Look Forward

  2008cites this paper
• Introduction to Commentaries on the Illinois Pilot Study of Lineup Reforms

  2008cites this paper
• Bayesian Bias in Forensics

  2008cites this paper
• Eyewitness identification: Line-ups on trial

  2008cites this paper
• Moving Forward: Response to “Studying Eyewitness Investigations in the Field”

  2008influential citation