Gender-related differences in eyewitness testimony

Personality and Individual Differences 50 (2011) 559–563

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Gender-related differences in eyewitness testimony Igor Areh ⇑ Faculty of Criminal Justice and Security, University of Maribor, Kotnikova 8, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 14 September 2010 Received in revised form 29 October 2010 Accepted 25 November 2010 Available online 16 December 2010 Keywords: Memory recall Gender Accuracy Quantity Eyewitness testimony

a b s t r a c t The research focused on sex differences in the accuracy and quantity of memory recall for specific details of an event. The respondent sample included 280 participants (57.5% females and 42.5% males) with an average age of 19 years. The participants were shown a two-minute recording of a violent robbery, supposedly captured by a surveillance camera, and told their help was needed in verifying hypotheses for the criminal investigation. The results have shown that, overall, females are more reliable eyewitnesses than males. Most notably, females outperformed males in the accuracy of person descriptions, particularly in victim descriptions. Males were more accurate in describing the event and also more confident in their memory, especially when describing the place of the incident. However, male confidence was unjustified because females showed a higher degree of accuracy also in place descriptions. The quantity of recalled details revealed no sex differences, probably because a checklist was used to evaluate memory recall. Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Memory distortions affect the testimonies of criminal act witnesses and represent a serious problem for at least two reasons – they have a bearing on the success rate in criminal act investigations and influence court decisions. The scope of this issue was underscored in 2000, when researchers found the number of DNA exonerations for innocently convicted persons in the USA and Canada to have been 118 up to that year (Scheck, Neufield, & Dwyer, 2000). Ten years later, the number of false verdicts in the USA alone has risen to 261 persons (Innocence Project, 2010). To a large extent, false verdicts are the result of false testimony (Scheck et al., 2000), and research has shown that legal professionals, police officers, and criminal investigators frequently have too much faith in the accuracy of eyewitness testimony (Kebbell & Milne, 1998; Lindsay, 2007). Gender is one of the factors significantly influencing memory recall, even though it has not yet been shown how great the differences are between the testimony of males and females, or what those differences are (Wells & Olson, 2003). The overall opinion is that small differences exist, and that they are due to differences in specific cognitive abilities (Astur, Ortiz, & Sutherland, 1998; Lippa, 2005). In their influential meta-analysis of a large number of face recognition studies, Shapiro and Penrod (1986) found that women performed better in face recognition, but made more mistakes than men. In order to explain this fact, they speculated that women ⇑ Tel.: +386 1 300 83 13; fax: +386 1 230 26 87. E-mail address: [email protected] 0191-8869/$ - see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.11.027

have a greater desire for efficiency and compliance with researchers than men. Recent research has confirmed that women are superior in face recognition (Rehnman & Herlitz, 2007). The differences were especially pronounced for own-gender recognition in women, showing the existence of own-sex bias (Lewin & Herlitz, 2002; Wright & Sladden, 2003). Females also outperformed males in recalling everyday tasks (Lindholm & Christianson, 1998), stories (Zelinski, Gilewski, & Schaie, 1993), names (Herlitz, Nilsson, & Bäckman, 1997), and episodic memories (Herlitz & Rehnman, 2008; Tulving, 1983, 1993). Better episodic memory recall has not only been confirmed in women, but also in children and young adults (Marin, Holes, Guth, & Kovac, 1979), and the elderly (De Frias, Nilsson, & Herlitz, 2006; Lindholm & Christianson, 1998). Females outperform males in perceiving changes in familiar object locations because they are better at recognizing object exchanges and shifts, and novel objects conditions (Hassan & Rahman, 2007). In addition, females outperform males in spatial location memory and object recognition (Eals & Silverman, 1994; Levy & Astur, 2005). In fact, superior male performance has only been demonstrated in spatial information memory, such as reading a map (Loftus, Banaji, Schooler, & Foster, 1987). Females also outperform males when verbal content is used in memory recall tests (Lewin, Wolgers, & Herlitz, 2001; Loftus et al., 1987). Gender differences are said to exist as a result of women’s superior verbal abilities, which contribute to greater memory recall (Herlitz & Rehnman, 2008). Research results for eyewitness testimony have shown a female advantage in the number of details and accuracy of memory recall, perhaps due to the theory that females have more elaborate categories for person information (Lindholn & Christianson, 1998).

560

I. Areh / Personality and Individual Differences 50 (2011) 559–563

In addition to higher episodic memory recall, females also demonstrated higher autobiographical memory recall, especially if the autobiographical memories had a strong emotional link (Seidlitz & Diener, 1998). Emotional information is not always the reason underlying accurate and lasting memories, however, as females typically also recall more neutral memories than males (Bloise & Johnson, 2007). Women’s autobiographical memories are more detailed than men’s (Davis, 1999; Seidlitz & Diener, 1998). A female advantage in the accessibility and accuracy of autobiographical memories is explained by two common hypotheses – according to the first, women’s perception of reality is more emotionally charged, making their information encoding more effective (Fujita, Diener, & Sandvik, 1991), and according to the second, a gender difference exists not only for encoding, but also for other two elementary memory processes: rehearsal, and retrieval of information (Seidlitz & Diener, 1998). More often than males, females would think about and discuss emotionally charged events, which leads to the conclusion that females are more prone to rehearsing or processing emotionally charged contents (Birditt & Fingerman, 2003; Harshman & Paivio, 1987; Schredl & Piel, 2003). Because a memory is strengthened each time we consciously rehearse it or think about it, women tend to be superior in recalling emotionally charged contents (Baddeley, 1997; Karpicke & Roediger, 2006), and tend to create emotionally charged autobiographical memories (Loftus et al., 1987). This is most probably also influenced by a common belief that women are more emotionally oriented than men, creating expectations in participants and influencing their responses in memory recall tests (Loftus et al., 1987). Differences in memory recall can also be attributed to different levels of motivation, different expectations, and different experience. These factors all influence where attention is directed and how information is encoded into long-term memory (Colley, Ball, Kirby, Harvey, & Vingelen, 2002; McGivern et al., 1997). Women pay more attention to detail, for example to clothing (type of clothing, cut, and colour), to hair colour, hair length, hairstyle, and to jewellery and make-up, which all contributes to more accurate descriptions of persons (Loftus, 1996). Males outperform females in recognizing male-oriented objects, but females outperform males both in recognizing female-oriented objects and neutral objects (Loftus et al., 1987; McGivern et al., 1997; Powers, Andriks, & Loftus, 1979). Evidence has shown superior female performance in the recognition of female faces, most likely because women show greater interest in the appearance of members of their own sex (Horgan, Schmid-Mast, Hall, & Carter, 2004; Rehnman & Herlitz, 2007). Even though not all studies have confirmed gender differences in clothing descriptions (Yarmey, Jacob, & Porter, 2006), the prevailing opinion is that women are better at describing the external appearance of both sexes (Loftus, 1996). The aim of the research was to establish gender differences in memory recall when participants are asked to describe an event they believe to be true. Several hypotheses were made: (1) accuracy of memory recall shows a female advantage, (2) females outperform males in the accuracy of person descriptions, (3) males are as reliable as females in describing an event without person descriptors, (4) females outperform males in the quantity of memory recall, and (5) males express a greater confidence in their memory, especially in the details of the place of an incident.

2. Method 2.1. Participants The research included 280 first-year undergraduate students without prior theoretical knowledge on eyewitness accounts of

criminal acts. Out of the total, 161 (57.5%) participants were female and 119 (42.5%) were male, with their ages ranging from 18 to 21 years (Me = 19). Their participation was voluntary. 2.2. Dependent variables The accuracy and quantity of memory recall was established with the following formulas: P P P AMR = Xtd/( Xatd + Xfd). AMR: accuracy of memory recall. P X : sum of true details given by a participant. P td X : sum of all possible true details (constant value 85). P atd Xfd: sum of false details given by a participant. P P P QMR = ( Xtd + Xfd)/ Xd. QMR: quantity of memory recall. P X : sum of true details given by a participant. P td X : sum of false details given by a participant. P fd Xd: sum of all details given in the checklist (constant value 101). 2.3. Instrument Memory recall was assessed using a feature checklist with a break-down of visual and audio event details. The reason for using a checklist was that in free recall, descriptions of persons tend to be incomplete, which can either be the result of different criteria about what is seen as important for each eyewitness (Koriat & Goldsmith, 1996), or a result of vocabulary differences (Meissner, Sporer, & Schooler, 2007). For the first 20 items, participants had to select among answers which dealt with the description of the place of the incident, the objects in the place, and the incident itself. Participants selected the answer they believed was true; it was also possible to answer with ‘‘I don’t know.’’ Next, they were given 28 person descriptors to describe the face, clothing, and shoes of a man, followed by 29 person descriptors for a woman. For each descriptor, they had to select one of six possible answers, and were then given one point for a correct answer, zero points for answering with ‘‘I don’t know,’’ and 1 point for a false answer. After the checklist, participants looked at several seven-level Likert scales to assess the quality of their memories of the event, the man and the woman, the location of the event, and their certainty in the memory. 2.4. Material A two-minute film tape showing a violent robbery was made. First a woman can be seen descending stairs and walking towards an exit. Next, a man stops her in passing by and first asks her to ‘lend’ him a small sum of money (5 euros), and then demands the money from her. The woman keeps refusing, and the man becomes increasingly agitated. Failing to get what he is asking, the man turns aggressive and physically assaults the woman, snatching her purse and running out of the building. The film looks like a recording made by a colour surveillance camera mounted on the staircase ceiling. 2.5. Procedure Participants watched the film in small groups. Their viewing schedule was planned so that students in different groups could not meet each other and discuss the recording. At the beginning, the participants were asked not to discuss the recording, which they were told was real – alleged authenticity of the recording was supposed to provide additional motivation. The participants were also told that the reason for watching the recording was to

561

I. Areh / Personality and Individual Differences 50 (2011) 559–563 Table 1 Gender differences in memory recall of the event, in person descriptions, and in the accuracy and quantity of memory recall. Variable

Sex

Meana(SD)

Accuracy of memory about the incident (no personal descriptors) – true details

M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F

.56 .53 .58 .59 .21 .18 .49 .55 .29 .24 .65 .71 .50 .52 .74 .74

Memory recall of the man – true details Memory recall of the man – false details Memory recall of the woman – true details Memory recall of the woman – false details Memory about the place – accuracy Accuracy of memory recall (AMR) Quantity of memory recall (QMR)

db

(.11) (.11) (.11) (.13) (.11) (.09) (.12) (.13) (.13) (.12) (.15) (.15) (.07) (.08) (.08) (.09)

t

df

Sig.c

.27

2.02

278

.044

.08

1.00

278

.317

.30

1.96

220.86

.051

.48

3.91

278

.000

.40

3.15

278

.002

.40

3.04

278

.003

.27

2.40

278

.017

.00

.09

278

.925

Note: Men: N = 119; women: N = 161. a Proportions. b Cohen’s d. c Two-tailed.

Table 2 Gender differences for self-perceived accuracy in the memory of the incident, the victim, the assailant, and for the confidence of the memory. Variable

Sex

Mean (SD)

Memory of the incident (1 = no details, 7 = full of details)

M F M F M F M F M F

3.38 3.25 3.55 3.61 3.78 3.78 4.64 4.25 4.32 4.05

Memory of the woman (1 = no details, 7 = full of details) Memory of the man (1 = no details, 7 = full of details) Memory of the place of the incident (1 = no details, 7 = full of details) Confidence in one’s memory (1 = no conf., 7 = absolutely confident)

(1.37) (1.14) (1.29) (1.26) (1.30) (1.25) (1.24) (1.31) (1.16) (1.12)

da

t

df

Sig.b

.10

.83

226.58

.133

.05

.39

278

.695

.00

.00

277

.999

.31

2.51

277

.013

.24

1.97

278

.050

Note: Men: N = 119; women: N = 161. a Cohen’s d. b Two-tailed.

help criminal investigators determine whether their assumptions were correct. This was done in order to achieve higher ecological validity of research results. We also assumed that participants would be more motivated to take part in the research if they were convinced the event was real. The participants filled out their checklists one week after watching the recording.

3. Results The reliability of the checklist was determined with Cronbach’s

a, which was .63. Since the total number of items on the checklist is high (N = 101), the low value of Cronbach’s a can be explained with the low variability of answers – the participants were selecting from a limited number of possible answers. Gender differences are most pronounced for victim description, with females recalling significantly more true details than males, a finding supported by a medium effect size (d = .48). Somewhat smaller but still significant are gender differences for false details of the victim’s appearance, with females reporting fewer false details than males (d = .40). Females also outperformed males in place description. Table 2 shows superior male confidence in self-perceived accuracy in the memory of the place of the incident, indicated by a moderate effect size (d = .31). Similarly, males expressed greater self-perceived accuracy in the memory of the event.

4. Discussion The first hypothesis was that the accuracy of memory recall would favour females over males; this turned out to be true. The data for the accuracy of memory recall (Table 1) reveals that the memory recall for females (AMR) is more accurate than for males. The difference is small and corresponds with the results of other researchers who came to similar conclusions in their eyewitness account analyses (e.g. Lindholn & Christianson, 1998). It was also assumed that females would outperform males in the accuracy of memory recall connected with person descriptions. Since females pay more attention to the personal appearance of other people, their overall memory recall of events is more accurate than men’s (Loftus, 1996). A female advantage in the overall accuracy of memory recall could also have been influenced by the fact that 75% (57 out of 77) of the items from the checklist dealt with the victim’s and the assailant’s appearance. If males lost points here, it was impossible for them to make the difference up over the 25% of remaining items which dealt with the incident description. The proportion used between the quantity of person descriptions and incident descriptions reflects a real-life police interview where investigators would mainly be concerned with personal appearance. The results in Table 1 show that gender differences were the most apparent when participants were describing the victim and the assailant. Men gave fewer true details in their memory recall of the victim’s appearance and more false

562

I. Areh / Personality and Individual Differences 50 (2011) 559–563

details both for their description of the victim and of the assailant. Females, therefore, were more accurate in their description of the two subjects, which has also been shown by other researchers (Horgan et al., 2004; Loftus, 1996; Rehnman & Herlitz, 2007). The main reason for the differences in the accuracy of memory recall was, it would seem, the description of the victim. In their description of the victim, females gave more true, and fewer false, details. Some researchers believe that females are better at describing members of their own sex because they pay more attention to them (Loftus, 1996; McGivern et al., 1997). Another possible reason why women focused on the victim more was that they identified with her. The process of identification or empathy with the victim probably started while the recording was being watched, since the victim shares some characteristics with female research participants: approximately the same age, a similar clothing style, and similar way of speaking. Since female participants identified with the victim, they were probably more motivated to take part in the research. They also believed that this was a real-life event being investigated by criminal investigators, and were therefore more motivated that the perpetrator be caught and brought to justice than men. Consequently, this kind of motivation can contribute to greater accuracy of memory recall. Results in Table 1 shows a slight male advantage in incident description, which is inconsistent with our hypothesis that there are no gender differences in the accuracy of memory recall for event description. This might mean that the difference between females and males in the accuracy of memory recall is prominent only when it includes person descriptions. Without person descriptions, the difference is either smaller or non-existent, or, alternatively, males can be even more reliable than females. Information relating to personal appearance is extremely important in criminal investigations, and women have to be considered as slightly more reliable eyewitnesses in this respect. We should not forget, however, that every eyewitness has to be thoroughly yet emphatically interviewed in order for investigators to obtain useful information. The fourth hypothesis proposed that females would outperform males in the quantity of memory recall, but our results did not confirm this. In fact, the quantity of memory recall (Table 1) is practically the same for both sexes – most likely due to the fact that memory recall was limited to a checklist where participants could not freely add the details they might have recalled. It is possible that females noted details males did not, but these were not available in the given answers. Males are more confident in assessing the reliability of their memory (Table 2) because they are more confident in their memory than females; a finding which is consistent with other researchers’ findings (e.g. Yarmey, 1993). The difference between genders is small, however, and if males are indeed more confident in their memory there is little reason for them to be, since the accuracy of memory recall showed a female advantage. Further analysis of Table 2 results reveals that males were more confident especially in their memory of the place of the incident, since they assessed their memory as more detailed when compared to females, which is what we expected. There were no significant differences between the sexes for self-perceived accuracy in the memory of the victim, the assailant, and the incident. It was established that males were actually not more accurate in describing the place of the incident (Table 1), but that, in fact, females were superior. The difference was to be expected since females outperform males in perceiving changes and shifts in the scene (Hassan & Rahman, 2007), in recalling object locations and in object recognition (Eals & Silverman, 1994; Levy & Astur, 2005). The higher confidence of males in their memory of the place of the incident might be explained by the belief that males have better spatial ability than females, which could affect the confidence in their memory (Loftus et al., 1987). In assessing the accuracy of

their memory regarding the incident place, males might have been more confident than females as a result of this belief; females were more reserved in their judgment than males. The belief that males are superior in recalling spatial information is, after all, relatively wide-spread (Halpern, 2000; Loftus et al., 1987), and it is possible that males overestimated and females underestimated the quality of memory recall for the place of the incident as a result of this belief. The self-perceived gender differences are connected with the way they are manifested in research results (Crawford, Chaffin, & Fitton, 1995; Hamilton, 1995). Gender differences in the accuracy of total memory recall support the assumption that males overestimate the accuracy of their memory recall – males are not as accurate, but nevertheless more confident than females. Higher confidence in the memory of the place of the incident, which, it appears, significantly contributed to overall higher confidence in one’s memory, is probably due to the fact that participants watched the incident scene at the beginning of the recording for approximately 10 s, during which time nothing else happened. Afterwards there was intensive interpersonal dynamics, and the participants’ focus shifted to the verbal and non-verbal action. Lower confidence in the memory of the victim and the assailant is most likely the result of a double attention focus when following the interpersonal dynamics. The event was fast and stress-inducing, leaving the participants with a feeling that it was difficult to both see and hear exactly what was happening and resulting in lower confidence in their memory, whereas the initial frame with the place of the incident gave them enough time to focus on place details. 5. Conclusion and limitations When assessing eyewitness reliability in criminal and court cases, it must be remembered that eyewitness confidence levels can be misleading. Males tend to express unjustifiably greater confidence, making them seem more reliable and thus leading criminal investigators and judges to wrong conclusions. Females, on the other hand, tend to be less confident than males, but with equally misleading results – the information they supply is often more accurate than the information provided by males. Special attention should be paid to gender-related differences for victim’s appearance; in this category, females outperformed males despite seeming less confident. Nevertheless, caution should be exercised when applying these findings into practice. First of all, checklist reliability was only .63, which means that error probability was 37%, and, second of all, study results are based on mock crime testimonies. For an actual event, the level of stress and the sense of being threatened might just have influenced gender-related differences. The method of ‘interviewing’ the participants was the main weakness of our research and should be changed for the future. Even though checklists have certain methodological advantages, they restrict the variability of possible answers; if the memory recall instrument had been less structured, findings would have broader implications. Recreating a criminal investigation interview would also be sensible, since it would not have been as structured as a checklist. References Astur, R. S., Ortiz, M. L., & Sutherland, R. J. (1998). A characterization of performance by men and women in a virtual Morris water task: A large and reliable sex difference. Behavioural Brain Research, 93, 185–190. Baddeley, A. D. (1997). Human memory: Theory and practice (Revised ed). Hove: Psychology Press Ltd.. Birditt, K. S., & Fingerman, K. L. (2003). Age and gender differences in adults’ descriptions of emotional reactions to interpersonal problems. Journal of Gerontology, 58B(4), 237–245. Bloise, S. M., & Johnson, M. K. (2007). Memory for emotional and neutral information: Gender and individual differences in emotional sensitivity. Memory, 15(2), 192–204.

I. Areh / Personality and Individual Differences 50 (2011) 559–563 Colley, A., Ball, J., Kirby, N., Harvey, R., & Vingelen, I. (2002). Gender-linked differences in everyday memory performance. Effort makes difference. Sex Roles, 47, 577–582. Crawford, M., Chaffin, R., & Fitton, L. (1995). Cognition in social context. Learning and Individual Differences, 7(4), 341–362. Davis, P. J. (1999). Gender differences in autobiographical memory for childhood emotional experiences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(3), 498–510. De Frias, C. M., Nilsson, L. G., & Herlitz, A. (2006). Sex differences in cognition are stable over a ten-year period in adulthood and old age. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 13, 574–587. Eals, M., & Silverman, I. (1994). The hunter-gatherer theory of spatial sex differences: Proximate factors mediating the female advantage in recall of object arrays. Ethology and Sociobiology, 15, 95–105. Fujita, F. F., Diener, E., & Sandvik, E. (1991). Gender differences in negative affect and well-being: The case for emotional intensity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 427–434. Halpern, D. F. (2000). Sex differences in cognitive abilities (3rd ed.). Hillsdale, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hamilton, C. J. (1995). Beyond sex differences in visuo-spatial processing: The impact of gender trait possession. British Journal of Psychology, 86, 1–20. Harshman, R. A., & Paivio, A. (1987). ‘‘Paradoxical’’ sex differences in self-reported imagery. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 41(3), 287–302. Hassan, B., & Rahman, Q. (2007). Selective sexual orientation-related differences in object location memory. Behavioral Neuroscience, 121(3), 625–633. Herlitz, A., Nilsson, L.-G., & Bäckman, L. (1997). Gender differences in episodic memory. Memory and Cognition, 25(6), 801–811. Herlitz, A., & Rehnman, J. (2008). Sex differences in episodic memory. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17(1), 52–56. Horgan, T. G., Schmid-Mast, M., Hall, J. A., & Carter, J. D. (2004). Gender differences in memory for the appearance of others. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(2), 185–196. Karpicke, J. D., & Roediger, H. L. III, (2006). Repeated retrieval during learning is the key to long-term retention. Journal of Memory and Language, 57(2), 151–162. Kebbell, M., & Milne, R. (1998). Police officers’ perception of eyewitness factors in forensic investigations. Journal of Social Psychology, 138, 323–330. Koriat, A., & Goldsmith, M. (1996). Monitoring and control processes in the strategic regulation of memory accuracy. Psychological Review, 103(3), 490–517. Levy, L. J., & Astur, R. S. (2005). Men and women differ in object memory but not performance of a virtual radial maze. Behavioral Neuroscience, 119(4), 853–862. Lewin, C., & Herlitz, A. (2002). Sex differences in face recognition: Women’s faces make the difference. Brain and Cognition, 50, 121–128. Lewin, C., Wolgers, G., & Herlitz, A. (2001). Sex differences favoring women in verbal but not in visuospatial episodic memory. Neuropsychology, 15, 165–173. Lindholm, T., & Christianson, S. Å. (1998). Gender effects in eyewitness accounts of a violent crime. Psychology. Crime & Law, 4(4), 323–339.

563

Lindsay, D. S. (2007). Autobiographical memory, eyewitness reports, and public policy. Canadian Psychology, 48(2), 57–66. Lippa, R. A. (2005). Gender, nature, and nurture (2nd ed.). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Loftus, E. F. (1996). Eyewitness testimony. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. Loftus, E. F., Banaji, M. R., Schooler, J. W., & Foster, R. (1987). Who remembers what?: Gender differences in memory. Michigan Quarterly Review, 26, 64–85. Marin, B., Holes, D., Guth, M., & Kovac, P. (1979). The potential of children as eyewitnesses: A comparison of children and adults on eyewitness tasks. Law and Human Behavior, 3, 295–306. McGivern, R. F., Huston, J. P., Byrd, D., King, T., Siegle, G. J., & Reilly, J. (1997). Sex differences in visual recognition memory: Support for a sex-related difference in attention in adults and children. Brain and Cognition, 34(3), 323–336. Meissner, C. A., Sporer, S. L., & Schooler, J. W. (2007). Person descriptions as eyewitness evidence. In R. Lindsay, D. Ross, J. Read, & M. Toglia (Eds.), Handbook of eyewitness psychology: Memory for people (pp. 3–34). Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates. Powers, P. A., Andriks, J. L., & Loftus, E. F. (1979). Eyewitness accounts of females and males. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64(3), 339–347. Rehnman, J., & Herlitz, A. (2007). Women remember more faces than men do. Acta Psychologica, 124(3), 344–355. Scheck, B., Neufield, P., & Dywer, J. (2000). Actual innocence. New York: Doubleday. Schredl, M., & Piel, E. (2003). Gender differences in dream recall: Data from four representative German samples. Personality and Individual Differences, 35(5), 1185–1189. Seidlitz, L., & Diener, E. (1998). Sex differences in the recall of affective experiences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(1), 262–271. Shapiro, P. N., & Penrod, S. (1986). Meta-analysis of facial identification studies. Psychological Bulletin, 100(2), 139–156. Tulving, E. (1983). Elements of episodic memory. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Tulving, E. (1993). Human memory. In P. Andersen, O. Hvalby, O. Paulsen, & B. Hökfelt (Eds.), Memory concepts – 1993: Basic and clinical aspects (pp. 27–45). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Wells, G. L., & Olson, E. A. (2003). Eyewitness testimony. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 277–295. Wright, D. B., & Sladden, B. (2003). An own gender bias and the importance of hair in face recognition. Acta Psychologica, 114, 101–114. Yarmey, A. D. (1993). Adult age and gender differences in eyewitness recall in field settings. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23, 1921–1932. Yarmey, A. D., Jacob, J., & Porter, A. (2006). Person recall in field settings. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(11), 2354–2367. Zelinski, E. M., Gilewski, M. J., & Schaie, K. W. (1993). Individual differences in crosssectional and three-year longitudinal memory performance across the adult life span. Psychology and Aging, 8(2), 176–186. Innocence Project (2010). Facts on Post-Conviction DNA Exonerations. Retrieved October 28, 2010, from www.innocenceproject.org/know/