User talk:Jessicalamb

Let us together explore the fascinating intricacies of eye witness accounts!

Potential Article Sources
Other Potential Sources (9/26)


 * Watkins v. Sowders - 449 U.S. 341 (1981)


 * Bright-Paul, Alexandra, and Christopher Jarrold. "A Temporal Discriminability Account Of Children's Eyewitness Suggestibility." Developmental Science 12.4 (2009): 647-661. PsycINFO. Web. 26 Sept. 2012.


 * Halpern, Abraham L. "Review Of 'The Death Of Innocents. An Eyewitness Account Of Wrongful Executions'." Journal Of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology 17.3 (2006): 507-514. PsycINFO. Web. 26 Sept. 2012.


 * Gina M. Gowen, et al. "Integrating Inattentional Blindness And Eyewitness Memory." North American Journal Of Psychology 13.3 (2011): 519-538. PsycINFO. Web. 26 Sept. 2012.


 * Memon, AminaFraser, JoanneColwell, KevinOdinot, GeraldaMastroberardino, Serena. "Distinguishing Truthful From Invented Accounts Using Reality Monitoring Criteria." Legal & Criminological Psychology 15.2 (2010): 177-194. Legal Collection. Web. 26 Sept. 2012.


 * Roberts, Andrew. "Eyewitness Identification And Expert Insight: R V Forbes." International Journal Of Evidence & Proof 14.1 (2010): 57-62. Legal Collection. Web. 26 Sept. 2012.


 * Wells, Gary L., Amina Memon, and Steven D. Penrod. "Eyewitness Evidence: Improving Its Probative Value." Psychological Science In The Public Interest 7.2 (2006): 45-75. PsycINFO. Web. 26 Sept. 2012.


 * Lipscomb, Thomas J., Hunter A. McAllister, and Norman J. Bregman. "Bias In Eyewitness Accounts: The Effects Of Question Format, Delay Interval, And Stimulus Presentation." Journal Of Psychology: Interdisciplinary And Applied 119.3 (1985): 207-212. PsycINFO. Web. 26 Sept. 2012.


 * Dunning, David, and Lisa B. Stern. "Examining The Generality Of Eyewitness Hypermnesia: A Close Look At Time Delay And Question Type." Applied Cognitive Psychology 6.7 (1992): 643-657. PsycINFO. Web. 26 Sept. 2012.


 * Brigham, John C.Hyme, Heather S. "Dealing With Fallible Eyewitness Evidence: How Scientific Research And Expert Testimony Can Help, Part I." Trial Lawyer 24.5 (2001): 301. Legal Collection. Web. 26 Sept. 2012.


 * http://as-psychology.pbworks.com/w/page/9174258/EyewitnessTestimony


 * http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/Eyewitness-Misidentification.php


 * http://sullivanfiles.net/324_portfolios/stephensen/maj_paper.pdf


 * https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/178240.pdf


 * http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/25/nyregion/in-new-jersey-rules-changed-on-witness-ids.html?_r=0

Article Evaluation: Negativity Bias Project Topic: Eyewitness Testimony

Books of Essays: Edited by Brian L. Cutler Edited by G. Daniel Lassiter, PhD and Christian A. Meissner, PhD
 * Conviction of the Innocent: Lessons from Psychological Research
 * Police Interrogations and False Confessions: Current Research, Practice, and Policy Recommendations
 * The psychology of eyewitness identification.

Specific Articles: Haber, Lyn; Haber, Ralph Norman Pope, Kenneth S. Olio, Karen A.; Cornell, William F. Authors: Houston, Kate A. Clifford, Brian R. Phillips, Louise H. Memon, Amina Authors: Sharps, Matthew J., California State University, Fresno, CA, US, matthew Herrera, Megan, Alliant International University, Fresno, CA, US Dunn, Laurel, Alliant International University, Fresno, CA, US Alcala, Emanuel, California State University, Fresno, CA, US
 * Criteria for judging the admissibility of eyewitness testimony of long past events.
 * Pseudoscience, cross-examination, and scientific evidence in the recovered memory controversy.
 * The facade of scientific documentation: A case study of Richard Ofshe's analysis of the Paul Ingram case.
 * The Emotional Eyewitness: The Effects of Emotion on Specific Aspects of Eyewitness Recall and Recognition Performance.
 * Repetition and reconfiguration: Demand-based confabulation in initial eyewitness memory.

Suggested Outline
Our goal is to almost completely rewrite the entire article to make it more reader friendly. We want to use legal cases, psychology research, and other reliable sources to enhance the validitiy of this article. Currently, the two sections are “Epistemological Aspects” and “Findings from History” with a brief introduction preceding those. Instead, we plan on having a more descriptive introduction, defining eyewitness testimony, and outlining major critiques regarding the reliability of eyewitness testimony. We want to outline the article as follows:

1) Intro
 * -Here, we want to simply define what eyewitness testimony is and explain that research shows how it can be unreliable.

2) Legal Use
 * -We would explain how prosecutors use this testimony to appeal to jury, and cite studies showing the bias effect it can lead to with juries.

3) Wrongful Convictions
 * -In this section, we would discuss the many cases where the eyewitness testimony turned out to be false or misunderstood. We would also cite statistics from the Innocence Project regarding false convictions

4) History of Research and Recent Research
 * -Traditional View would be a subheading. It would reformat some of the information already provided in the article as a discussion on early opinion and research regarding eyewitness testimony
 * -Current View would be another subheading. It would focus on current studies on why eyewitness testimony proves to be inaccurate. This section would lean heavily on Loftus and her research.

5) Cognitive Errors that Occur
 * - If necessary, this section would elaborate on any applicable cognitive processes that explain the inaccuracy of eyewitness testimony that were not covered in the preceding section

6) Evaluating eyewitness testimony
 * -Information already in the article and from others sources about how to use eyewitness testimony effectively and how to accurately evaluate eyewitness testimony will be discussed in this section.

I would suggest rearranging it a bit. For instance, I would move up the research section early in the article as well as the cognitive errors that occur. Then I would talk about legal use and wrongful convictions. Legal use is the application and wrongful conviction is more like a warning about the limitations. If you talk about those things before you talk about the research and what the errors are, it's not going to make as much sense. Dguyla (talk) 12:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

In response to your feedback
I can see you have done some work in your sandbox..... did you intend it to appear in an article?? If so you need to edit the article.

Ariconte (talk) 05:31, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

&#160;