关于目击者记忆研究专家意见的新见解

IF 10.5 1区心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY

Perspectives on Psychological Science Pub Date : 2024-04-18 DOI:10.1177/17456916241234837

Travis M. Seale-Carlisle, Adele Quigley-McBride, Jennifer E. F. Teitcher, William E. Crozier, Chad S. Dodson, Brandon L. Garrett

{"title":"关于目击者记忆研究专家意见的新见解","authors":"Travis M. Seale-Carlisle, Adele Quigley-McBride, Jennifer E. F. Teitcher, William E. Crozier, Chad S. Dodson, Brandon L. Garrett","doi":"10.1177/17456916241234837","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Experimental psychologists investigating eyewitness memory have periodically gathered their thoughts on a variety of eyewitness memory phenomena. Courts and other stakeholders of eyewitness research rely on the expert opinions reflected in these surveys to make informed decisions. However, the last survey of this sort was published more than 20 years ago, and the science of eyewitness memory has developed since that time. Stakeholders need a current database of expert opinions to make informed decisions. In this article, we provide that update. We surveyed 76 scientists for their opinions on eyewitness memory phenomena. We compared these current expert opinions to expert opinions from the past several decades. We found that experts today share many of the same opinions as experts in the past and have more nuanced thoughts about two issues. Experts in the past endorsed the idea that confidence is weakly related to accuracy, but experts today acknowledge the potential diagnostic value of initial confidence collected from a properly administered lineup. In addition, experts in the past may have favored sequential over simultaneous lineup presentation, but experts today are divided on this issue. We believe this new survey will prove useful to the court and to other stakeholders of eyewitness research.","PeriodicalId":19757,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Psychological Science","volume":"210 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"New Insights on Expert Opinion About Eyewitness Memory Research\",\"authors\":\"Travis M. Seale-Carlisle, Adele Quigley-McBride, Jennifer E. F. Teitcher, William E. Crozier, Chad S. Dodson, Brandon L. Garrett\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/17456916241234837\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Experimental psychologists investigating eyewitness memory have periodically gathered their thoughts on a variety of eyewitness memory phenomena. Courts and other stakeholders of eyewitness research rely on the expert opinions reflected in these surveys to make informed decisions. However, the last survey of this sort was published more than 20 years ago, and the science of eyewitness memory has developed since that time. Stakeholders need a current database of expert opinions to make informed decisions. In this article, we provide that update. We surveyed 76 scientists for their opinions on eyewitness memory phenomena. We compared these current expert opinions to expert opinions from the past several decades. We found that experts today share many of the same opinions as experts in the past and have more nuanced thoughts about two issues. Experts in the past endorsed the idea that confidence is weakly related to accuracy, but experts today acknowledge the potential diagnostic value of initial confidence collected from a properly administered lineup. In addition, experts in the past may have favored sequential over simultaneous lineup presentation, but experts today are divided on this issue. We believe this new survey will prove useful to the court and to other stakeholders of eyewitness research.\",\"PeriodicalId\":19757,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Perspectives on Psychological Science\",\"volume\":\"210 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":10.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Perspectives on Psychological Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916241234837\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Perspectives on Psychological Science","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916241234837","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

调查目击者记忆的实验心理学家定期收集他们对各种目击者记忆现象的看法。法院和目击证人研究的其他利益相关者依靠这些调查所反映的专家意见做出明智的决定。然而，上一次此类调查是在 20 多年前发布的，自那时起，目击者记忆的科学就已经发展起来了。利益相关者需要一个最新的专家意见数据库来做出明智的决策。在本文中，我们将提供最新信息。我们调查了 76 位科学家对目击者记忆现象的看法。我们将这些当前的专家意见与过去几十年的专家意见进行了比较。我们发现，今天的专家与过去的专家有许多相同的观点，并且在两个问题上有更细微的想法。过去的专家赞同置信度与准确度关系不大的观点，但现在的专家承认从适当的列队中收集到的初始置信度具有潜在的诊断价值。此外，过去的专家可能倾向于顺序列队而非同时列队，但现在的专家在这个问题上意见不一。我们相信，这项新的调查将证明对法庭和目击证人研究的其他利益相关者是有用的。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

New Insights on Expert Opinion About Eyewitness Memory Research

Experimental psychologists investigating eyewitness memory have periodically gathered their thoughts on a variety of eyewitness memory phenomena. Courts and other stakeholders of eyewitness research rely on the expert opinions reflected in these surveys to make informed decisions. However, the last survey of this sort was published more than 20 years ago, and the science of eyewitness memory has developed since that time. Stakeholders need a current database of expert opinions to make informed decisions. In this article, we provide that update. We surveyed 76 scientists for their opinions on eyewitness memory phenomena. We compared these current expert opinions to expert opinions from the past several decades. We found that experts today share many of the same opinions as experts in the past and have more nuanced thoughts about two issues. Experts in the past endorsed the idea that confidence is weakly related to accuracy, but experts today acknowledge the potential diagnostic value of initial confidence collected from a properly administered lineup. In addition, experts in the past may have favored sequential over simultaneous lineup presentation, but experts today are divided on this issue. We believe this new survey will prove useful to the court and to other stakeholders of eyewitness research.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Perspectives on Psychological Science PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-

CiteScore

22.70

自引率

4.00%

发文量

111

期刊介绍： Perspectives on Psychological Science is a journal that publishes a diverse range of articles and reports in the field of psychology. The journal includes broad integrative reviews, overviews of research programs, meta-analyses, theoretical statements, book reviews, and articles on various topics such as the philosophy of science and opinion pieces about major issues in the field. It also features autobiographical reflections of senior members of the field, occasional humorous essays and sketches, and even has a section for invited and submitted articles. The impact of the journal can be seen through the reverberation of a 2009 article on correlative analyses commonly used in neuroimaging studies, which still influences the field. Additionally, a recent special issue of Perspectives, featuring prominent researchers discussing the "Next Big Questions in Psychology," is shaping the future trajectory of the discipline. Perspectives on Psychological Science provides metrics that showcase the performance of the journal. However, the Association for Psychological Science, of which the journal is a signatory of DORA, recommends against using journal-based metrics for assessing individual scientist contributions, such as for hiring, promotion, or funding decisions. Therefore, the metrics provided by Perspectives on Psychological Science should only be used by those interested in evaluating the journal itself.