↓ Skip to main content

Effects of cannabis on eyewitness memory: A field study

Overview of attention for article published in Applied Cognitive Psychology, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
97 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
45 Mendeley
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

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 97 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 45 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 9 20%
Student > Master 8 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 11%
Researcher 4 9%
Professor 3 7%
Other 7 16%
Unknown 9 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 14 31%
Neuroscience 6 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 11%
Social Sciences 4 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 10 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 84. 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
#498,121
of 25,217,627 outputs
Outputs from Applied Cognitive Psychology
#65
of 1,306 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,228
of 333,451 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Applied Cognitive Psychology
#2
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,217,627 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 1,306 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.5. 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 333,451 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 particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.