One of the pitfalls of doing research is that although you may know a lot about your topic through extensive reading, it is hard to keep track of where you obtained bits of information. I have observed that it is easy to read and gain new information and ideas, but it is sometimes harder to recall where those ideas came from. This isn't generally a problem we face, but in research it becomes more apparent. As researchers, we have to provide citations for ideas that are not ours. This situation can be likened to a source memory error, which occurs when we incorrectly think that a recollected experience is the source of a particular memory.
As I worked on finishing 20 annotations for my final paper this week, I came across some important new solutions to eyewitness misidentification that I thought I should share with you. In a 2008 article in Police Chief magazine, three attorneys from Seattle, Chicago and New York suggest that instead of implementing radical changes to the way identifications are carried out (i.e., by using sequential, "double-blind" methods), better standards and police training should be put in place to reduce the rate of false identifications. As I have mentioned before, the effectiveness of sequential and double-blind identification procedures is controversial. A field study conducted in Illinois demonstrated that these methods do not result in lower rates of false identification; however, researchers have criticized the study for its failure to control for extraneous variables. To avoid this controversy altogether, Mecklenburg, Larson and Bailey (2008) suggest that more rigorous identification standards be implemented, for example giving witnesses written instructions and having them sign the instructions, setting high standards for the selection of fillers in lineups, and establishing protocol for interviewing witnesses and recording the identification procedure.
One of the pitfalls of doing research is that although you may know a lot about your topic through extensive reading, it is hard to keep track of where you obtained bits of information. I have observed that it is easy to read and gain new information and ideas, but it is sometimes harder to recall where those ideas came from. This isn't generally a problem we face, but in research it becomes more apparent. As researchers, we have to provide citations for ideas that are not ours. This situation can be likened to a source memory error, which occurs when we incorrectly think that a recollected experience is the source of a particular memory. References: Mecklenburg, S. H., Larson, M. R., & Bailey, P. J. (2008). Eyewitness identification: What chiefs need to know now. The Police Chief, 75(10). Retrieved from http://tinyurl.com/aoyw5of
1 Comment
Samantha
5/3/2013 08:03:59 am
Hi Eureka!
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
The Psych ApprenticeEyewitness Identification and the Manson TestShould a new legal framework for assessing the reliability of eyewitness identifications be put into place to overcome the flaws of the Manson test? Archives
May 2013
Categories |