Reasons to doubt the reliability of eyewitness memory: Commentary on Wixted, Mickes, and Fisher (2018)

Kimberley A. Wade, Robert A. Nash, D. Stephen Lindsay

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debate

Abstract

Wixted, Mickes, and Fisher (this issue) take issue with the common trope that eyewitness memory is inherently unreliable. They draw on a large body of mock-crime research and a small number of field studies, which indicate that high-confidence eyewitness reports are usually accurate, at least when memory is uncontaminated and suitable interviewing procedures are used. We agree with the thrust of Wixted et al.’s argument and welcome their invitation to confront the mass underselling of eyewitnesses’ potential reliability. Nevertheless, we argue that there is a comparable risk of overselling eyewitnesses’ reliability. Wixted et al.’s reasoning implies that near-pristine conditions or uncontaminated memories are normative, but there are at least two good reasons to doubt this. First, psychological science does not yet offer a good understanding of how often and when eyewitness interviews might deviate from best practice in ways that compromise the accuracy of witnesses’ reports. Second, witnesses may frequently be exposed to preinterview influences that could corrupt reports obtained in best-practice interviews.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)339-342
JournalPerspectives on Psychological Science
Volume13
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 May 2018

Fingerprint

Practice Guidelines
Interviews
Crime
Psychology
Research

Bibliographical note

© Sage 2018. The final publication is available via Sage at http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1745691618758261.

Keywords

  • application
  • law
  • memory

Cite this

Wade, Kimberley A. ; Nash, Robert A. ; Lindsay, D. Stephen. / Reasons to doubt the reliability of eyewitness memory: Commentary on Wixted, Mickes, and Fisher (2018). In: Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2018 ; Vol. 13, No. 3. pp. 339-342.
@article{4f6306064200404f8219563d14380338,
title = "Reasons to doubt the reliability of eyewitness memory: Commentary on Wixted, Mickes, and Fisher (2018)",
abstract = "Wixted, Mickes, and Fisher (this issue) take issue with the common trope that eyewitness memory is inherently unreliable. They draw on a large body of mock-crime research and a small number of field studies, which indicate that high-confidence eyewitness reports are usually accurate, at least when memory is uncontaminated and suitable interviewing procedures are used. We agree with the thrust of Wixted et al.’s argument and welcome their invitation to confront the mass underselling of eyewitnesses’ potential reliability. Nevertheless, we argue that there is a comparable risk of overselling eyewitnesses’ reliability. Wixted et al.’s reasoning implies that near-pristine conditions or uncontaminated memories are normative, but there are at least two good reasons to doubt this. First, psychological science does not yet offer a good understanding of how often and when eyewitness interviews might deviate from best practice in ways that compromise the accuracy of witnesses’ reports. Second, witnesses may frequently be exposed to preinterview influences that could corrupt reports obtained in best-practice interviews.",
keywords = "application, law, memory",
author = "Wade, {Kimberley A.} and Nash, {Robert A.} and Lindsay, {D. Stephen}",
note = "{\circledC} Sage 2018. The final publication is available via Sage at http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1745691618758261.",
year = "2018",
month = "5",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/1745691618758261",
language = "English",
volume = "13",
pages = "339--342",
number = "3",

}

Reasons to doubt the reliability of eyewitness memory: Commentary on Wixted, Mickes, and Fisher (2018). / Wade, Kimberley A.; Nash, Robert A.; Lindsay, D. Stephen.

In: Perspectives on Psychological Science, Vol. 13, No. 3, 01.05.2018, p. 339-342.

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debate

TY - JOUR

T1 - Reasons to doubt the reliability of eyewitness memory: Commentary on Wixted, Mickes, and Fisher (2018)

AU - Wade, Kimberley A.

AU - Nash, Robert A.

AU - Lindsay, D. Stephen

N1 - © Sage 2018. The final publication is available via Sage at http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1745691618758261.

PY - 2018/5/1

Y1 - 2018/5/1

N2 - Wixted, Mickes, and Fisher (this issue) take issue with the common trope that eyewitness memory is inherently unreliable. They draw on a large body of mock-crime research and a small number of field studies, which indicate that high-confidence eyewitness reports are usually accurate, at least when memory is uncontaminated and suitable interviewing procedures are used. We agree with the thrust of Wixted et al.’s argument and welcome their invitation to confront the mass underselling of eyewitnesses’ potential reliability. Nevertheless, we argue that there is a comparable risk of overselling eyewitnesses’ reliability. Wixted et al.’s reasoning implies that near-pristine conditions or uncontaminated memories are normative, but there are at least two good reasons to doubt this. First, psychological science does not yet offer a good understanding of how often and when eyewitness interviews might deviate from best practice in ways that compromise the accuracy of witnesses’ reports. Second, witnesses may frequently be exposed to preinterview influences that could corrupt reports obtained in best-practice interviews.

AB - Wixted, Mickes, and Fisher (this issue) take issue with the common trope that eyewitness memory is inherently unreliable. They draw on a large body of mock-crime research and a small number of field studies, which indicate that high-confidence eyewitness reports are usually accurate, at least when memory is uncontaminated and suitable interviewing procedures are used. We agree with the thrust of Wixted et al.’s argument and welcome their invitation to confront the mass underselling of eyewitnesses’ potential reliability. Nevertheless, we argue that there is a comparable risk of overselling eyewitnesses’ reliability. Wixted et al.’s reasoning implies that near-pristine conditions or uncontaminated memories are normative, but there are at least two good reasons to doubt this. First, psychological science does not yet offer a good understanding of how often and when eyewitness interviews might deviate from best practice in ways that compromise the accuracy of witnesses’ reports. Second, witnesses may frequently be exposed to preinterview influences that could corrupt reports obtained in best-practice interviews.

KW - application

KW - law

KW - memory

UR - http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1745691618758261?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%3dpubmed

UR - http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/98818

U2 - 10.1177/1745691618758261

DO - 10.1177/1745691618758261

M3 - Comment/debate

VL - 13

SP - 339

EP - 342

IS - 3

ER -