Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Eyewitness identification accuracy and response latency.

Neil Brewer1, Alita Caon, Chelsea Todd

  • 1Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia. neil.brewer@flinders.edu.au

Law and Human Behavior
|May 27, 2006
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Does Having Autism Impact One's Ability to Report Autistic Characteristics? A Comparison of Self, Informant, and Clinician Reports.

Journal of autism and developmental disorders·2026
Same author

Corrigendum to Jumping to conclusions and delusional ideation: A systematic review and meta-analysis across the psychosis continuum [Clinical Psychology Review 120 (2025) 102618].

Clinical psychology review·2025
Same author

The Understanding of Wrongfulness by Autistic Individuals in the Criminal Justice System.

Journal of autism and developmental disorders·2025
Same author

Overconfidence or resolution in psychosis: a Bayesian reanalysis.

Cognitive neuropsychiatry·2025
Same author

Perceived Remorse and Education: Their Impact on Mock Juror Judgements of Autistic Individuals.

Journal of autism and developmental disorders·2025
Same author

Jumping to conclusions and delusional ideation: A systematic review and meta-analysis across the psychosis continuum.

Clinical psychology review·2025
Same journal

Viewing police body-worn camera video of use-of-force incidents: Does repeated or slow-motion viewing matter?

Law and human behavior·2026
Same journal

Psychopathy in the context of adversity: Understanding associations of early-life adversity and psychopathic symptoms in a sample of justice-involved youth.

Law and human behavior·2026
Same journal

Race and ethnicity in the courtroom workgroup: Can diversifying the court solve racial and ethnic disparities in case outcomes?

Law and human behavior·2026
Same journal

The justice motive: Retributive and restorative factors affect public evaluations of child protection.

Law and human behavior·2026
Same journal

A risk-need-responsivity (RNR)-informed systematic review of needs during the pretrial period.

Law and human behavior·2026
Same journal

When we do not care about what happens to "criminals": How character judgments influence indifference to incidental suffering in the criminal justice system.

Law and human behavior·2026
See all related articles

Accurate eyewitness identifications are faster than inaccurate ones. However, the optimal time to distinguish between accurate and inaccurate identifications is not fixed and varies with conditions, contrary to previous claims.

Area of Science:

  • Cognitive Psychology
  • Forensic Psychology
  • Legal Psychology

Background:

  • Eyewitness identification accuracy is crucial in legal proceedings.
  • Research indicates a correlation between identification speed and accuracy.
  • Previous studies suggested a specific latency threshold (10-12s) for high accuracy.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To re-evaluate the relationship between eyewitness identification latency and accuracy.
  • To test the generalizability of a fixed latency threshold.
  • To investigate how factors like retention interval and lineup size influence this relationship.

Main Methods:

  • Experimental manipulation of retention interval and nominal lineup size.
  • Analysis of identification response times (latency).

Related Experiment Videos

  • Comparison of accuracy rates across different latency ranges and experimental conditions.

    • Main Results:

    • The optimal time boundary for discriminating accurate from inaccurate identifications is not fixed.
    • This boundary varies significantly with overall response latency, retention interval, and lineup size.
    • Reported high accuracy rates within specific latency windows were not replicated under varied conditions.

    Conclusions:

    • The claim of a universal 10-12s latency threshold for high accuracy is not supported.
    • Identification latency is a dynamic indicator of accuracy, influenced by multiple factors.
    • Further research is needed to establish reliable methods for diagnosing eyewitness identification accuracy based on latency.