| Title |
Effects of cannabis on eyewitness memory: A field study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Applied Cognitive Psychology, April 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1002/acp.3414 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Annelies Vredeveldt, Steve D. Charman, Aukje den Blanken, Maren Hooydonk |
| Abstract |
Eyewitnesses to crimes are regularly under the influence of drugs, such as cannabis. Yet there is very little research on how the use of cannabis affects eyewitness memory. In the present study, we assessed the effects of cannabis on eyewitness recall and lineup identification performance in a field setting. One hundred twenty visitors of coffee shops in Amsterdam viewed a videotaped criminal event, were interviewed about the event, and viewed a target-present or target-absent lineup. Witnesses under the influence of cannabis remembered significantly fewer correct details about the witnessed event than did sober witnesses, with no difference in incorrect recall. Cannabis use was not significantly associated with lineup identification performance, but intoxicated witnesses were significantly better at judging whether their lineup identification was accurate. Theoretical and practical implications of the findings are discussed. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 98 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 17 | 17% |
| United Kingdom | 11 | 11% |
| United States | 10 | 10% |
| Netherlands | 4 | 4% |
| Spain | 3 | 3% |
| Ireland | 2 | 2% |
| Italy | 2 | 2% |
| Nigeria | 2 | 2% |
| India | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 8 | 8% |
| Unknown | 38 | 39% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 79 | 81% |
| Scientists | 14 | 14% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 4% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 48 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 10% |
| Other | 4 | 8% |
| Researcher | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 7 | 15% |
| Unknown | 11 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 16 | 33% |
| Neuroscience | 6 | 13% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 8% |
| Unknown | 12 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 85. 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 08 April 2022.
All research outputs
#509,829
of 25,743,152 outputs
Outputs from Applied Cognitive Psychology
#66
of 1,330 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,311
of 341,948 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Applied Cognitive Psychology
#2
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,743,152 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,330 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
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 341,948 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.