Special Issue Article
Münsterberg's legacy: What does eyewitness research tell us about the reliability of eyewitness testimony?†
Amina Memon,
Serena Mastroberardino,
Joanne Fraser,
Corresponding Author
Amina Memon
School of Psychology, University of Aberdeen, Scotland, UK
School of Psychology, William Guild Building, University of Aberdeen, King's College, Aberdeen AB24 2UB, Scotland, UK.Search for more papers by this authorSerena Mastroberardino
School of Psychology, University of Aberdeen, Scotland, UK
Search for more papers by this authorJoanne Fraser
School of Psychology, University of Aberdeen, Scotland, UK
Search for more papers by this authorAmina Memon,
Serena Mastroberardino,
Joanne Fraser,
Corresponding Author
Amina Memon
School of Psychology, University of Aberdeen, Scotland, UK
School of Psychology, William Guild Building, University of Aberdeen, King's College, Aberdeen AB24 2UB, Scotland, UK.Search for more papers by this authorSerena Mastroberardino
School of Psychology, University of Aberdeen, Scotland, UK
Search for more papers by this authorJoanne Fraser
School of Psychology, University of Aberdeen, Scotland, UK
Search for more papers by this author†
The contribution of Münsterberg's contemporaries and predecessors should also be noted (see Bornstein & Penrod, 2008).
Abstract
Münsterberg alerted us about the fallibility of eyewitness memory 100 years ago and we have come far in our understanding of the factors contributing to eyewitness error. A healthy empirical literature, including several meta-analytic reviews, suggests progress has been made in understanding the impact of various estimator and system variables on eyewitness performance. We begin by acknowledging Münsterberg's pioneering studies of eyewitness fallibility. We then turn to the methodological contribution of Buckhout (1974), a follower of Münsterberg. A selective review of research then highlights the scientific merits and pitfalls of the laboratory and archival approach to studying eyewitness behaviour. We end with a discussion of what experts can really tell the courts about the causal and associative relationships between various estimator and system variables. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
REFERENCES
- Achieving Best Evidence in Criminal Proceedings: Guidance for Vulnerable or Intimidated Witnesses, including Children. Home Office [online]. Available: (http://www.homeoffice. gov.uk/documents/achieving-best-evidence/).
- Bartlett, J. C., & Memon, A. (2007). Eyewitness memory in young and older adults. In R. C. L. Lindsay D. F. Ross J. D. Read, & M. P. Toglia (Eds.), Handbook of Eyewitness Testimony: Memory for people (Vol. II). US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
- Behrman, B. W., & Davey, S. L. (2005). Eyewitness identification in actual criminal cases: An archival analysis. Law and Human Behaviour, 25, 475–491.
- Bornstein, B. H., & Penrod, S. D. (2008). Hugo who? G. F. Arnold's alternative early approach to psychology and law. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 759–768. DOI: 10.1002/acp.1480
-
Brainerd, C. J., &
Reyna, V. F.
(2005).
The science of false memory.
New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195154054.001.0001 Google Scholar
- Brewer, N., & Weber, N. (2008). Eyewitness confidence and latency: Indices of memory processes not just markers of accuracy. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 827–840. DOI: 10.1002/acp.1486
- Buckhout, R. (1974). Eyewitness testimony. Scientific American, 231, 23–31.
- Ceci, S. J., & Bruck, M. (1993). The suggestibility of the child witness: A historical review and synthesis. Psychological Bullentin, 113, 403–439.
- Clark, S. E. (2005). A re-examination of the effects of biased lineup instructions in eyewitness identification. Law & Human Behaviour, 29, 395–424.
- Clark, S. E. (2008). The importance (necessity) of computational modelling for eyewitness identification research. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 803–813. DOI: 10.1002/acp.1484
- Clifford, B. R., & Hollin, C. R. (1981). Effects of the type of incident and the number of perpetrators on eyewitness memory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 364–370.
- Darling, S., Valentine, T., & Memon, A. (2008). Selection of lineup foils in operational contexts. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 159–169.
-
Davies, G. M., &
Valentine, T.
(1999).
Codes of practice for identification.
Expert Evidence,
7,
59–65.
10.1023/A:1008940723781 Google Scholar
- Deffenbacher, K. A. (2008). Estimating the impact of estimator variables on eyewitness identification: A fruitful marriage of practical problem solving and psychological theorizing. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 815–826. DOI: 10.1002/acp.1485
- Deffenbacher, K. A., Bornstein, B. H., Penrod, S. D., & McGorty, K. (2004). A meta-analytic review of the effects of high stress on eyewitness memory. Law and Human Behaviour, 8, 687–706.
- Deffenbacher, K. A., Bernstein, B. H., & Penrod, S. D. (2006). Mugshot exposure effects: Retroactive interference, mugshot commitment, source confusion, and unconscious transference. Law and Human Behavior, 30, 287–307.
- Dolyle, J. M. (2005). True witness: Cops, courts, science and the battle against misidentification. New York; USA: Palgrave MacMillan.
- Dysart, J. E., Lindsay, R. C. L., MacDonald, T. K., & Wicke, C. (2002). The intoxicated witness: Effects of alcohol on identification accuracy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 170–175.
- Hope, L., & Wright, D. (2007). Beyond unusual? Examining the role of attention in the weapon focus effect. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 951–962.
- Hulse, L. M., & Memon, A. (2006). Fatal impact? The effects of emotional arousal and weapon presence on Police officers' memories for a simulated crime. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 11, 313–325.
- Kassin, S., Ellsworth, P. C., & Smith, V. L. (1989). The “general acceptance” of psychological reseacrh on eyewitness testimony: A survey of experts. American Psychologist, 44, 1089–1098.
- Kassin, S., Tubb, A., Hosch, H. M., & Memon, A. (2001). On the “general acceptance” of eyewitness testimony research: A new survey of experts. American Psychologist, 56, 405–416.
- Köhneken, G., Milne, R., Memon, A., & Bull, R. (1999). A meta-analysis on the effects of the cognitive interview. Psychology, Crime and Law, 5, 3–27.
- Lindholm, T. (2008). Who can judge the accuracy of eyewitness statements? A comparison of professionals and lay-persons. Applied Cognitive Psychology (in press).
- Loftus, E. F. (2005). Searching for the neurobiology of the misinformation effect. Learning & Memory, 12, 1–2.
- Loftus, E. F., Levidow, B., & Duensing, S. (1992). Who remembers best? Individual differences in memory for events that occurred in a science museum. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 6, 93–107.
- Malpass, R. S., & Devine, P. G. (1981). Eyewitness identification: Lineup instructions and the absence of the offender. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 482–489.
- Meissner, C. A., & Brigham, J. C. (2001). Thirty years of investigating the own-race bias in memory for faces: A meta-analytic review. Psychology, Public Policy & Law, 7, 3–35.
- Meissner, C. A., Sporer, S. L., & Susa, K. J. (2008). A theoretical and meta-analytic review of the relationship between verbal descriptions and identification accuracy in memory for faces. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 20, 414–455.
- Memon, A., Hope, L., & Bull, R. H. C. (2003). Exposure duration: Effects on eyewitness accuracy and confidence. British Journal of Psychology, 94, 339–354.
- Memon, A., Vrij, A., & Bull, R. (2003). Psychology and law: Truthfulness, accuracy, and credibility. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
-
Mitchell, K. J., &
Livosky, M., &
Mather, M.
(1998).
The weapon focus effect revisited: The role of novelty.
Legal and Criminological Psychology,
3,
287–303.
10.1111/j.2044-8333.1998.tb00367.x Google Scholar
- Morgan, C. A., Hazlett, G., Doran, A., Garrett, S., Hoyt, G., Thomas, P., et al. (2004). Accuracy of eyewitness memory for persons encountered during exposure to highly intense stress. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 27, 265–279.
- Morgan, C. A., Aikins, D. E., & Steffian, G. (2007). Relation between cardiac vagal tone and performance in male military personnel exposed to high stress: Three prospective studies. Psychophysiology, 44, 120–127.
- Münsterberg, H. (1908). On the witness stand. New York: Doubleday, Page & Company.
- Pickel, K. (1999). The influence of context on the weapon focus effect. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 299–311.
- Pickel, K., Ross, S. J., & Truelove, R. (2006). Do weapons automatically capture attention? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 871–893.
- Pike, G., Brace, N., & Kyman, S. (2002). The visual identification of suspects: Procedures and practice. Briefing note 2/02 Policing and Reducing Crime Unit, Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate [online]. Available: (www:homeoffice:gov:uk=rds=prgbriefpubs1:html).
- Roebers, C. M., & Schneider, W. (2000). The impact of misleading questions on eyewitness memory in children and adults. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14, 509–526.
- Stein, M. L., & Memon, A. (2006). Testing the efficacy of the cognitive interview in a developing country. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 587–605.
- Toglia, M. P., Read, J. D., Ross, D. F., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (2006). The handbook of eyewitness psychology: Memory for events (Vol. I). US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
- Tollestrup, P. A., Turtle, J. W., & Yuille, J. C. (1994). Actual victims and witnesses to robbery and fraud: An archival analysis. In D. F. Ross, J. D. Read, & M. P. Toglia (Eds.), Adult eyewitnesses testimony: Current trends and developments (Vol. 1). UK: Cambridge University Press.
- Valentine, T., Pickering, A., & Darling, S. (2003). Characteristics of eyewitness identification that predict the outcome of real lineups. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 969–993.
- Valentine, T., Darling, S., & Memon, A. (2007). Do strict rules and moving images increase the reliability of sequential identification procedures? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 933–949.
- Van Koppen, P., & Lochun, S. K. (1997). Portraying perpetrators: The validity of offender descriptions by perpetrators. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 661–685.
- Wells, G. L., Malpass, R. S., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (2000). From the lab to the Police station: A successful application of eyewitness research. American Psychologist, 55, 581–598.
- Wells, G. L., Memon, A., & Penrod, S. D. (2006). Eyewitness evidence: Improving its probative value. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7, 45–75.
- Wright, D. (2006). Casual and Associative hypothesis in psychology. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 12, 190–213.
- Wright, D. B., Boyd, C. E., & Tredoux, C. G. (2001). A. field study of own-race advantage in South Africa and England. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 7, 119–133.
- Yarmey, A. D. (1993). Adult age and gender differences in eyewitness recall in field settings. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23, 1921–1932.
- Yarmey, A. D., & Yarmey, M. J. (1997). Eyewitness recall and duration estimates in field settings. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 330–344.
- Zimmerman, L. A. (2006). Research examining Police officers as eyewitnesses: Do Police describe and identify criminal perpetrators better than civilians? Manuscript submitted for publication.
