| Title |
How Can We Help Witnesses to Remember More? It’s an (Eyes) Open and Shut Case
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Law and Human Behavior, January 2008
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10979-007-9109-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Timothy J. Perfect, Graham F. Wagstaff, Dawn Moore, Blake Andrews, Victoria Cleveland, Sarah Newcombe, Kelly-Ann Brisbane, Leanne Brown |
| Abstract |
Five experiments tested the idea that instructing a witness to close their eyes during retrieval might increase retrieval success. In Experiment 1 participants watched a video, before a cued-recall test for which they were either instructed to close their eyes, or received no-instructions. Eye-closure led to an increase in correct cued-recall, with no increase in incorrect responses. Experiments 2-5 sought to test the generality of this effect over variations in study material (video or live interaction), test format (cued- or free-recall) and information modality (visual or auditory details recalled). Overall, eye-closure increased recall of both visual detail and auditory details, with no accompanying increase in recall of false details. Collectively, these data convincingly demonstrate the benefits of eye-closure as an aid to retrieval, and offer insight into why hypnosis, which usually involves eye-closure, may facilitate eyewitness recall. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 97 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 2% |
| South Africa | 1 | 1% |
| Australia | 1 | 1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Finland | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 91 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 25 | 26% |
| Student > Master | 19 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 10% |
| Researcher | 8 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 7% |
| Other | 17 | 18% |
| Unknown | 11 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 61 | 63% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 6% |
| Philosophy | 3 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 2% |
| Arts and Humanities | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 8 | 8% |
| Unknown | 15 | 15% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 August 2016.
All research outputs
#17,285,036
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Law and Human Behavior
#708
of 1,047 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#143,393
of 168,384 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Law and Human Behavior
#8
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,047 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 168,384 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.