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

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debate

View graph of relations Save citation

Open

Authors

Research units

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.

Documents

Details

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)339-342
JournalPerspectives on Psychological Science
Volume13
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 May 2018

Bibliographic note

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

    Keywords

  • application, law, memory

DOI

Download statistics

No data available

Employable Graduates; Exploitable Research

Copy the text from this field...