Dies ist eine Übersichtsseite mit Metadaten zu dieser wissenschaftlichen Arbeit. Der vollständige Artikel ist beim Verlag verfügbar.
Eyewitness memory is still not common sense: comparing jurors, judges and law enforcement to eyewitness experts
216
Zitationen
5
Autoren
2005
Jahr
Abstract
Knowledge of factors affecting eyewitness accuracy was examined in a sample of jurors, judges and law enforcement professionals. Participants completed a survey in which they were asked to agree or disagree with 30 statements about eyewitness issues, and their responses were compared to a sample of eyewitness experts who completed the same survey. Participant responses differed significantly from responses of eyewitness experts. Jurors disagreed with the experts on 87% of the issues, while judges and law enforcement disagreed with the experts on 60% of the issues. The findings show a large deficiency in knowledge of eyewitness memory amongst jurors, judges and law enforcement personnel, indicating that the legal system may benefit from expert assistance in the evaluation of eyewitness evidence. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Ähnliche Arbeiten
Levels of processing: A framework for memory research
1972 · 9.494 Zit.
The episodic buffer: a new component of working memory?
2000 · 7.130 Zit.
Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending and a general theory.
1977 · 7.114 Zit.
Human Memory: A Proposed System and its Control Processes
1968 · 6.962 Zit.
The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity
2001 · 6.736 Zit.