Policy forum: studying eyewitness investigations in the field.
- Author(s): Schacter, Daniel L
- Dawes, Robyn
- Jacoby, Larry L
- Kahneman, Daniel
- Lempert, Richard
- Roediger, Henry L
- Rosenthal, Robert
- et al.
Published Web Locationhttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-007-9093-9
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.