The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Memory for a staged criminal event witnessed live and on video
Abstract
Memory for a staged robbery was tested in two groups of participants witnessing the event either live (n = 62) or on video (n = 64). Immediately after the event participants filled out a questionnaire probing memory with emphasis on the timing of the event and robber characteristics. The results showed that participants who watched a video recording of the event reported more details and with a higher accuracy than participants who were present on the scene, but the pattern of memory errors were similar in the two conditions. It is concluded that laboratory experiments may overestimate the memory of eyewitnesses but are otherwise able to simulate essential aspects of memory performance in naturalistic contexts.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“For instance, results of a recent study by Ihlebaek, Love, Eilertsen, and Magnussen (2003) demonstrated that witnesses to a live staged robbery reported fewer details about the criminal event and with less accuracy than did witnesses viewing a video recording of the same event, even though the pattern of memory er rors was similar in both conditions.”
From A meta-analytic review of the effects of high stress on eyewitness memory (2004) · cites this paper as Ihlebaek et al. (2003)
In the citing paper
“We agree with Ihlebaek et al. (2003) that results of laboratory studies may be an overestimate of eyewitness memory performance, especially we might add, when eyewitnesses are in a state of heightened stress.”
From A meta-analytic review of the effects of high stress on eyewitness memory (2004) · cites this paper as Ihlebaek et al. (2003)
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 33
- 10.1111/1467-8721.00002 · DOI
- 10.1037/0003-066X.44.9.1185 · DOI
- Brigham J. C., 1989, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 673, 10.1037/0022-3514.42.4.673 · DOI
- 10.1037/0003-066X.46.1.27 · DOI
- 10.1002/acp.2350070502 · DOI
- Conway M. A., 1991, American Psychologist, 46, 1926, 10.1037/0003-066X.46.1.19 · DOI
- Cutler B. L., 1987, Law and Human Behavior, 13, 311, 10.1007/BF01067032 · DOI
- Cutshall J. L., 1989, Psychological methods in criminal investigation and evidence, 97
- Goodman G. S., 1999, Handbook of forensic psychology, 218
- Jusslin P., 1996, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 22, 1304
- 10.1037/0096-3445.123.3.297 · DOI
- 10.1017/S0140525X00042114 · DOI
- Lindsay R. C. L., 1988, Practical aspects of memory: Current research and issues, 47-42
- Loftus E. F., 1979, Eyewitness testimony
- Loftus E. F., 1991, American Psychologist, 46, 16, 10.1037/0003-066X.46.1.16 · DOI
- 10.3758/BF03202423 · DOI
- Loftus E. F., 1989, Psychological methods in criminal investigation and evidence, 3
- 10.1002/acp.2350010103 · DOI
- MacLeod M. D., 1994, Adult eyewitness testimony. Current trends and developments, 125, 10.1017/CBO9780511759192.007 · DOI
- McKenna J., 1992, Psychology and social policy, 283
- Neisser U., 1978, Practical aspect of memory, 3
- Piggot M. A., 1990, Journal of Police Science and Administration, 17, 84
- Read J. D., 1998, Eyewitness memory. Theoretical and applied perspectives, 107
- 10.1080/00224545.1994.9712191 · DOI
- Sporer S. L., 1996, Psychological issues in eyewitness identification, 53
- Sporer S. L., 1995, Psychological Bulletin, 118, 315-127, 10.1037/0033-2909.118.3.315 · DOI
- Tollestrup P., 1994, Adult eyewitness testimony. Current trends and developments, 144, 10.1017/CBO9780511759192.008 · DOI
- 10.1023/A:1024812831576 · DOI
- Williams K. D., 1992, Handbook of psychology and law, 141, 10.1007/978-1-4757-4038-7_8 · DOI
- 10.1002/acp.717 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1993.tb01073.x · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1997.tb00635.x · DOI
- 10.1037/0003-066X.48.5.572 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A meta-analytic review of the effects of high stress on eyewitness memory
Deffenbacher, K. A., Bornstein, B. H., Penrod, S. D., & McGorty, E. K. (2004) · Law and Human Behavior · doi:10.1007/s10979-004-0565-x · Cited by 489
Loftus, E. F. (2003) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.58.11.867 · Cited by 350
Metadata
- Authors
- Ihlebæk, C., Løve, T., Erik Eilertsen, D., & Magnussen, S.
- Affiliations
- University of Oslo (NO)
- a University of Oslo, Norway
- ORCID
- Magnussen, Svein
- Venue
- Memory
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2003-01
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 319-327
- ISSN
- 0965-8211 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-0686
- OpenAlex
- W1999338563
- Cited by
- 59
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 1.47
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Memory (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Deception detection and forensic psychology
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
- Keywords
- eyewitness memory, memory accuracy, memory errors, event timing, offender characteristics
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Analysis of Variance, Crime, Female, Humans, Male, Psychological Tests, Surveys and Questionnaires, Mental Recall, Time Factors, Videotape Recording
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
