See alsoFalse Memories; Forced Confabulation; Hypnosis
and Eyewitness Memory; Reconstructive Memory;
Repeated Recall; Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM)Further Readings
Briere, J., & Conte, J. R. (1993). Self-reported amnesia for
abuse in adults molested as children. Journal of Traumatic
Stress, 6,21–31.
Goodman, G. S., Ghetti, S., Quas, J. A., Edelstein,
R. S., Alexander, K. W., Redlich, A. D., et al. (2003). A
prospective study of memory for child sexual abuse: New
findings relevant to the repressed-memory controversy.
Psychological Science, 14,113–118.
Holmes, D. S. (1994). Is there evidence for repression?
Doubtful. Harvard Mental Health Letter, 10(12), 4–6.
Loftus, E. F., & Guyer, M. J. (2002). Who abused Jane Doe?
The hazards of the single case history (Part 1). Skeptical
Inquirer, 26(3), 24–32.
Loftus, E. F., & Guyer, M. J. (2002). Who abused Jane Doe?
The hazards of the single case history (Part 2). Skeptical
Inquirer, 26(4), 37–40, 44.
Loftus, E. F., & Ketcham, K. (1994). The myth of repressed
memory.New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Melchert, T. P. (1996). Childhood memory and a history of
different forms of abuse. Professional Psychology:
Research and Practice, 27,438–446.
Pope, H. G., Jr., & Hudson, J. I. (1995). Can individuals
“repress” memories of childhood sexual abuse? An
examination of the evidence. Psychiatric Annals,
25,715–719.
Williams, L. M. (1994). Recall of childhood trauma: A
prospective study of women’s memories of child sexual
abuse. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
62,1167–1176.RESPONSELATENCY IN
EYEWITNESSIDENTIFICATION
An important issue for the police and courts is the extent
to which an eyewitness’s decision about a lineup can be
trusted as accurate. Consequently, psychologists have
searched for variables associated with the witness’s
decision that help distinguish correct from incorrect
decisions. One such variable is response latency (or
response speed). Response latency is measured as the
time elapsed from the witness’s first view of a lineup or
photo array to their indication of a decision. A consistent
relationship has been identified between the response
latency and accuracy of positive identifications, but notof lineup rejections. Thus, fast identifications are more
likely than slow identifications to be correct, while rapid
and ponderous lineup rejections are equally likely to be
accurate.
The rationale behind the investigation of response
latency as a marker of accuracy is that witnesses who
have a good memory of the offender should be able to
determine whether any of the lineup members match
their memory more rapidly than witnesses with a poor
memory. Furthermore, response latency is compelling
as a potential marker of accuracy for two reasons.
First, unlike other potential markers of identification
accuracy (e.g., confidence or self-reported decision
strategy), response latency is a direct product of the
identification task. Consequently, it is objectively
measurable and not subject to the same influences as
self-report measures. Second, response latency is cor-
related with other markers of accuracy (e.g., faster
responses tend to be made with more confidence)
without being identical to them. Thus, the combina-
tion of response latency and confidence may discrim-
inate correct from incorrect decisions more effectively
than either marker alone.
Although it has not been the focus of an over-
whelming amount of research attention, investigations
of response latency in eyewitness identification and
face recognition have produced very consistent results.
Specifically, a relationship is consistently observed
between the response latency of positive identifications
and the accuracy of those identifications, with the likely
accuracy of an identification declining as the response
latency increases. In contrast, studies equally consis-
tently find no evidence for a relationship between the
response latency of lineup rejections (i.e., responses
that the offender is not present in the lineup) and the
accuracy of those rejections. Interestingly, this pattern
of a significant relationship with accuracy for choosers
(i.e., positive identifications), but not nonchoosers (i.e.,
lineup rejections), parallels the findings regarding the
confidence-accuracy relationship in face recognition
and eyewitness identification.
Despite the consistency of the relationship between
the speed and accuracy of positive identifications, this
knowledge does not necessarily translate into a practi-
callyuseful discrimination tool. For example, is a wit-
ness who takes 30 seconds to identify the suspect from
a six-person photo array fast, and therefore likely to be
correct, or slow, and likely to be incorrect? Researchers
have attempted to address this challenge in two major
ways. One involved the direct manipulation of
response latency. However, attempts to produce high692 ———Response Latency in Eyewitness IdentificationR-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:43 PM Page 692