Content uploaded by Christian A. Meissner
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Christian A. Meissner on Nov 06, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Psychology, Department of
Faculty Publications, Department of
Psychology
University of Nebraska - Lincoln Year
Basic and Applied Issues in Eyewitness
Research: A M¨unsterberg Centennial
Retrospective
Brian H. Bornstein∗Christian Meissner†
∗University of Nebraska-Lincoln, bbornstein2@unl.edu
†University of Texas at El Paso, USA
This paper is posted at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln.
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/psychfacpub/337
733
Published in Applied Cognitive Psychology 22 (2008), pp. 733–736; doi 10.1002/acp.1478 Copyright
© 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Used by permission. http://www.interscience.wiley.com
Introduction to a special issue on “Basic and Applied Issues in Eyewitness Research: A Münsterberg
Centennial Retrospective”
Basic and Applied Issues in Eyewitness Research:
A Münsterberg Centennial Retrospective
Brian H. Bornstein* and Christian A. Meissner**
* Corresponding author; Department of Psychology, 238 Burnett Hall, University of
Nebraska–Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68588-0308 USA; email bbornstein2@unl.edu
** University of Texas at El Paso, USA
Whether memory research should emphasize fundamental psychological theory in
well-controlled laboratory settings (i.e. “basic” research) or practical questions in natural-
istic settings (i.e. “applied” research) is a recurrent question in the eld. The debate became
especially prominent with the advent of the “everyday memory movement” in the 1980s
(e.g. Banaji & Crowder, 1989; Neisser, 1978, 1991), but it dates back to the origins of experi-
mental psychology itself (i.e. the basic approach espoused by Wundt and Titchener vs. the
more applied perspective taken by Külpe, Ebbinghaus, Binet, James and others). The de-
bate is particularly relevant to the subarea of eyewitness memory, which has such obvious
implications for the legal system.
Hugo Münsterberg, who was one of the earliest researchers on eyewitness memory, is
probably the rst gure to advocate strongly for a wider reliance by the courts on psycho-
logical research (Münsterberg, 1908; others, such as Binet and Freud, made similar, albeit
less forceful, recommendations). Münsterberg’s efforts were largely rebuffed (Wigmore,
1909), and since that time, there have been repeated calls for the courts to take eyewitness
research (indeed, all social science research) more seriously, accompanied by a range of ju-
dicial responses ranging from ready acceptance to outright rejection (Monahan & Walker,
2005). Nor are all psychologists of one mind on this issue. Indeed, even Münsterberg him-
self, who is widely regarded as one of the founders of applied psychology, at times urged
caution in applying psychological research ndings to real-world problems (Münsterberg,
1898; see Benjamin, 2006).
The time is ripe to revisit this issue, for three main reasons. First, 2008 is the centennial
of the publication of Münsterberg’s seminal work, On the Witness Stand. Thus, it is an apt
time to step back and reconsider some of the issues raised by Münsterberg and other early
researchers, and to see how far the eld as a whole has come in the last 100 years. A con-
ference at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in March 2007 (“Off the Witness Stand”) ex-
734 Bornstein & Meissner in Applied Cognitive p syChology 22 (2008)
plicitly raised these issues, and several of the present papers are an outgrowth of the con-
ference and some of the themes—historical, theoretical and methodological—that were
raised there.
Second, although the courts often remain skeptical of eyewitness research, it is gradu-
ally gaining acceptance by the American legal system (Benton, McDonnell, Ross, Thomas,
& Bradshaw, 2007; Technical Working Group for Eyewitness Evidence, 1999). In contrast
to the gradual and somewhat halting inltration of eyewitness research in the American
legal system, the British system has moved forward with a variety of reforms and has
developed through more cooperative efforts between law enforcement and researchers
(see Bull, 1999). Despite these contrasting models of progress, there is still disagreement
throughout the research community about the reliability of certain research ndings and
whether they have been sufciently researched to be used in court or to be advocated in
the context of policy reform (e.g. Benton et al., 2007; Kassin, Tubb, Hosch, & Memon, 2001;
Malpass, 2006; Penrod & Bornstein, 2007). The disagreement often centers on issues of ex-
ternal and ecological validity (Penrod & Bornstein, 2007), which is at the heart of the larger
basic vs. applied debate (Banaji & Crowder, 1989).
Third, the trend for greater acceptance of research ndings by the legal system has, in
the opinions of some observers, created a situation in which there is an overemphasis on
practical questions, accompanied by a lack of theoretical relevance. For example, some
have suggested that research on the use of simultaneous vs. sequential lineups has pro-
gressed from a largely practical perspective (e.g. “diagnostic value”; see Wells & Olson,
2002) and has lacked a full understanding of the psychological mechanisms that may be in-
uenced by the shift in lineup method (Clark, 2003; Clark & Davey, 2005; Gronlund, 2004,
2005; McQuiston-Surrett, Malpass, & Tredoux, 2006; Meissner, Tredoux, Parker, & Ma-
cLin, 2005). In other words, there is evidence that the pendulum is swinging too far in the
applied direction. Although there is a place for psycholegal research that is primarily theo-
retical or primarily applied, the best psycholegal research addresses important legal ques-
tions while simultaneously advancing psychological theory (e.g. Wiener et al., 2002).
On the whole, then, it is a good time to revisit this debate. Applied Cognitive Psychology
is an ideal venue for this endeavor, given the sorts of substantive and methodological is-
sues that the journal typically considers. The articles contained in this special issue take
a historical perspective in addressing the contemporary debate over the use of basic re-
search methods and theory vs. applied approaches in research on eyewitness memory. It
is easier for researchers to know where they are, as a eld, when they have an apprecia-
tion of where they have been. By inserting Münsterberg into this debate, our goal is to ex-
amine what lessons we can draw from the past and to apply those lessons to contempo-
rary issues. These issues concern both basic questions related to theory development (e.g.
episodic memory, face recognition, social inuence) and applied questions with implica-
tions for public policy.
The topics covered in this issue reect the great variety of topics studied under the ru-
bric of eyewitness memory, as well as the diversity of research methodologies and loca-
tions. Indeed, the papers describe research conducted both in and outside the laboratory,
and they are written by scientists from the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom,
Germany, South Africa and Australia. Münsterberg might have brought eyewitness re-
search from Germany to the United States, but it has since spread worldwide.
In organizing the contents of the issue, we have used the heuristic of going from the
general to the specic. All of the papers are informed by a historical perspective, in gen-
eral, and Münsterberg’s work in particular; but we begin with two papers that are ex-
Basic and applied issues in eyewitness research: introduction 735
plicitly historical analyses and place On the Witness Stand in its historical context. Sporer
accomplishes this by reminding readers of the wealth of eyewitness research being con-
ducted in Europe in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, especially by the German psy-
chologist William Stern; while Bornstein and Penrod do so by contrasting Münsterberg’s
work with that of his virtually unknown contemporary, G. F. Arnold.
The next three papers (Turtle et al.; Lane & Meissner; Malpass et al.) broadly address the
critical issues with which the eld of eyewitness research grapples: should we be doing
basic or applied research? Is it possible to do both at once, and do them well? Does (and
can) research using divergent methodologies yield convergent ndings? How much con-
vergence, and how large a body of ndings, is necessary to promote condent policy rec-
ommendations or to provide responsible and accurate expert testimony? While there are
no easy answers to these questions, these papers will help ensure that we do not lose sight
of these issues in conducting eyewitness research.
The four papers that follow (Clark; Deffenbacher; Brewer & Weber; Memon et al.) con-
tinue this discussion by exploring a number of specic topics in greater detail. The topics
considered in these papers include the application of mathematical models to understand
eyewitness behavior, methodological challenges and concerns, and the inuence of several
estimator (e.g. stress, retention interval, condence, decision latency) and system variables
(e.g. lineup composition, lineup instructions). As with other papers in this issue, they ad-
dress the basic and applied contributions of the research, and they identify areas where the
literature yields fairly consistent ndings, as well as areas where more work is needed.
The special issue concludes with a commentary by Gary Wells. Wells’ own research on
eyewitness memory has produced a number of important theoretical and applied ndings,
so his perspective on these issues is an important one. As a whole, the papers show that
the eld of eyewitness research is healthy, vibrant, occasionally contentious, and growing.
We feel that Münsterberg and other pioneers would be proud of what they began, and we
look forward to the next 100 years.
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to Jennifer Dysart and the John Jay College of Criminal Justice for orga-
nizing the “Off the Witness Stand” conference in New York City in March 2007, where the
idea for this issue originated; and to Graham Davies, Bob Belli, and Martine Powell, the ed-
itors of Applied Cognitive Psychology, for their encouragement and support.
References
Banaji, M. R., & Crowder, R. G. (1989). The bankruptcy of everyday memory. American Psychologist,
44, 1185-1193.
Benjamin, L. T. (2006). Hugo Münsterberg’s attack on the application of scientic psychology. Jour-
nal of Applied Psychology, 91, 414-425.
Benton, T. R., McDonnell, S., Ross, D. F., Thomas, N., & Bradshaw, E. (2007). Has eyewitness re-
search penetrated the American legal system? In R. C. L. Lindsay, D. F. Ross, J. D. Read, & M.
P. Toglia (Eds.), Handbook of eyewitness psychology, Vol. 2: Memory for people (pp. 453-500). Mah-
wah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bull, R. (1999). Police investigative interviewing. In A. Memon, & R. Bull (Eds.), Handbook of the psy-
chology of interviewing (pp. 279-292). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
736 Bornstein & Meissner in Applied Cognitive p syChology 22 (2008)
Clark, S. E. (2003). A memory and decision model for eyewitness identication. Applied Cognitive Psy-
chology, 17, 629-654.
Clark, S. E., & Davey, S. L. (2005). The target-to-foils shift if simultaneous and sequential lineups. Law
& Human Behavior, 29, 151-172.
Gronlund, S. D. (2004). Sequential lineups: Shift in criterion or decision strategy? Journal of Applied
Psychology, 89, 362-368.
Gronlund, S. D. (2005). Sequential lineup advantage: Contributions of distinctiveness and recollec-
tion. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 23-37.
Kassin, S. M., Tubb, V. A., Hosch, H. M., & Memon, A. (2001). On the general acceptance of eyewit-
ness testimony research: A new survey of the experts. American Psychologist, 56, 405-416.
Malpass, R. S. (2006). A policy evaluation of simultaneous and sequential lineups. Psychology, Public
Policy, & Law, 12, 394-418.
McQuiston-Surrett, D. E., Malpass, R. S., & Tredoux, C. G. (2006). Sequential vs. simultaneous line-
ups: A review of methods, data, and theory. Psychology, Public Policy & Law, 12, 137-169.
Meissner, C. A., Tredoux, C. G., Parker, J. F., & MacLin, O. H. (2005). Eyewitness decisions in simul-
taneous and sequential lineups: A dual-process signal detection theory analysis. Memory & Cog-
nition, 33, 783-792.
Monahan, J., & Walker, L. (2005). Social science in law (5th ed.). Westbury, NY: Foundation Press.
Münsterberg, H. (1898). The danger from experimental psychology. Atlantic Monthly, 81, 159-167.
Münsterberg, H. (1908). On the witness stand. New York: Doubleday.
Neisser, U. (1978). Memory: What are the important questions? In M. M. Gruneberg, P. E. Morris, &
R. N. Sykes (Eds.), Practical aspects of memory (pp. 3-24). London: Academic Press.
Neisser, U. (1991). A case of misplaced nostalgia. American Psychologist, 46, 34-36.
Penrod, S. D., & Bornstein, B. H. (2007). Generalizing eyewitness reliability research. In R. C. L. Lind-
say, D. F. Ross, J. D. Read, & M. P. Toglia (Eds.), Handbook of eyewitness psychology, Vol. 2: Mem-
ory for people (pp. 529-556). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Technical Working Group for Eyewitness Evidence. (1999). Eyewitness evidence: A guide for law en-
forcement. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
Wells, G. L., & Olson, E. A. (2002). Eyewitness identication: Information gain from incriminating
and exonerating behaviors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 8, 155-167.
Wiener, R. L., Hackney, A., Kadela, K., Rauch, S., Seib, H., Warren, L., et al. (2002). The t and im-
plementation of sexual harassment law to workplace evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology,
87, 747-764.
Wigmore, J. H. (1909). Professor Münsterberg and the psychology of evidence. Illinois Law Review,
3, 399-445.