ABSTRACT
Eyewitness memory has been the principal research focus in forensic psychology (e.g., Saks, 1986). This interest in memory for witnessed events was manifest when psychology was still a new academic discipline. Several of the first generation of experimental psychologists published studies on the topic (e.g., Binet, 1900; Munsterberg, 1908; Stern, 1910). This early work had a characteristic tone of skepticism about the ability of witnesses to provide extensive and accurate accounts. Following swiftly upon the publication of the early studies, some psychologists claimed an important courtroom role for eyewitness research results (e.g., Munsterberg, 1908). They felt that the triers of fact should be alerted to the poor performance of witnesses in psychological studies. This initiated a debate about the applied value of psychological research that has continued to the present (e.g., Loftus, 1979; McCloskey & Egeth, 1983; Wigmore, 1909; Yuille & Wells, in press). This debate has had many facets, but a basic and contentious issue has been the extent to which research findings can be generalized to forensic contexts.
