Research on age and sex differences in eyewitness memory has attracted the attention of applied cognitive psychologists for almost a century. The present work is a repetition of Stern's classic research (1903–1904) with 35 boys and 30 girls in primary school. Stern's original claims concerning the superior observational skills of older subjects were fully confirmed. However, in sharp contrast, the present investigation did not yield significant differences in either accuracy of recall or resistance to incorrect information between boys and girls.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BinetA. (1898) La suggestibilité au point de vue de la psychologie individuelle [Suggestibility from the point of view of the psychology of individual differences]. L'Année Psychologique, 5, 85–152.
2.
BinetA. (1900) La suggestibilite. Paris: Schleicher.
3.
BinetA.HenriV. (1894) De la suggestibilité naturelle chez les enfants. Revue philosophique, 38, 337–347.
4.
BirdC. (1927) The influence of the press upon the accuracy of report. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 22, 123–129.
CadyH. N. (1924) On the psychology of testimony. American Journal of Psychology, 35, 110–112.
7.
CliffordB. R.ScottJ. (1978) Individual and situational factors in eyewitness testimony. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 352–359.
8.
CunninghamJ. L. (1988) French historical views on the acceptability of evidence regarding child sexual abuse. Psychological Reports, 63, 343–353.
9.
CunninghamJ. L.BringmannW. G. (1986) A re-examination of William Stern's classic eyewitness research. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 63, 565–566.
10.
DaleP. S.LoftusE. F.RathbunL. (1978) The influence of the question on the eyewitness testimony of preschool children. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 7, 269–277.
11.
DeauxK. (1984) From individual differences to social categories. American Psychologist, 39, 105–116.
12.
EaglyA. H.CarliL. L. (1981) Sex of researchers and sex-typed communications as determinants of sex differences in influencability: A meta-analysis of social influence studies. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 86–116.
13.
EllisH.ShephardJ.BruceA. (1973) The effect of age and sex upon adolescents' recognition of faces. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 123, 173–174.
14.
HamsterW.SchmidtH. (1976) Experimentelle Untersuchungen zur Beobachtungsfähigkeit und Suggestibilität bei Kindern und Jugendlichen. Archiv für Kriminologie, 157, 143–153.
15.
HydeJ. S. (1981) How large are cognitive gender differences? A meta-analysis using ω2 and d. American Psychologist, 36, 892–901.
16.
LoftusE. F. (1979) Eyewitness testimony. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer. Press.
17.
MaccobyE. E.JacklinC. N. (1974) The psychology of sex differences. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univer. Press.
18.
MarinB. V.HolmesD. L.GuthM.KovacP. (1979) The potential of children as eyewitnesses. Law and Human Behavior, 3, 295–306.
19.
McClaveJ. T.DietrichF. H. (1979) Statistics. San Francisco, CA: Dellen.
20.
McKelvieS. (1976) The effects of verbal labeling on recognition memory for schematic faces. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 28, 459–474.
21.
NeisserU. (Ed.) (1982) Memory observed: Remembering in natural contexts. San Francisco, CA: Freeman.
22.
SternW. (1902) Zur Psychologie der Aussage. Zeitschrift für Strafwissenschaft, 22, 315–370.
23.
SternW. (1903–1904) Die Aussage als geistige Leistung und Verhörsprodukt. In SternW. (Ed.), Beiträge zur Psychologic der Aussage. Vol. 1. Leipzig: J. A. Barth. Pp. 269–425.
24.
TrankellA. (1972) Reliability of evidence. Stockholm: Bechmans.
25.
WitryolS.KaessW. (1977) Sex differences in social memory tasks. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 54, 343–346.
26.
YarmeyA. D. (1984) Age as a factor in eyewitness memory. In WellsG. L.LoftusE. F. (Eds.), Eyewitness testimony. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge Univer. Press. Pp. 142–154.
