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 a b s t r a c t

Article history: The research focused on sex differences in the accuracy and quantity of memory recall for specific details
Received 14 September 2010 of an event. The respondent sample included 280 participants (57.5% females and 42.5% males) with an
Received in revised form 29 October 2010 average age of 19 years. The participants were shown a two-minute recording of a violent robbery, sup-
Accepted 25 November 2010
posedly captured by a surveillance camera, and told their help was needed in verifying hypotheses for the
Available online 16 December 2010
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
Keywords:
victim descriptions. Males were more accurate in describing the event and also more confident in their
Memory recall
Gender
memory, especially when describing the place of the incident. However, male confidence was unjustified
Accuracy because females showed a higher degree of accuracy also in place descriptions. The quantity of recalled
Quantity details revealed no sex differences, probably because a checklist was used to evaluate memory recall.
Eyewitness testimony Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction have a greater desire for efficiency and compliance with research-
ers than men. Recent research has confirmed that women are supe-
Memory distortions affect the testimonies of criminal act rior in face recognition (Rehnman & Herlitz, 2007). The differences
witnesses and represent a serious problem for at least two reasons were especially pronounced for own-gender recognition in wo-
– they have a bearing on the success rate in criminal act investiga- men, showing the existence of own-sex bias (Lewin & Herlitz,
tions and influence court decisions. The scope of this issue was 2002; Wright & Sladden, 2003). Females also outperformed males
underscored in 2000, when researchers found the number of in recalling everyday tasks (Lindholm & Christianson, 1998), stories
DNA exonerations for innocently convicted persons in the USA (Zelinski, Gilewski, & Schaie, 1993), names (Herlitz, Nilsson, &
and Canada to have been 118 up to that year (Scheck, Neufield, & Bäckman, 1997), and episodic memories (Herlitz & Rehnman,
Dwyer, 2000). Ten years later, the number of false verdicts in the 2008; Tulving, 1983, 1993). Better episodic memory recall has
USA alone has risen to 261 persons (Innocence Project, 2010). To not only been confirmed in women, but also in children and young
a large extent, false verdicts are the result of false testimony adults (Marin, Holes, Guth, & Kovac, 1979), and the elderly (De
(Scheck et al., 2000), and research has shown that legal profession- Frias, Nilsson, & Herlitz, 2006; Lindholm & Christianson, 1998).
als, police officers, and criminal investigators frequently have too Females outperform males in perceiving changes in familiar object
much faith in the accuracy of eyewitness testimony (Kebbell & locations because they are better at recognizing object exchanges
Milne, 1998; Lindsay, 2007). and shifts, and novel objects conditions (Hassan & Rahman,
Gender is one of the factors significantly influencing memory 2007). In addition, females outperform males in spatial location
recall, even though it has not yet been shown how great the differ- memory and object recognition (Eals & Silverman, 1994; Levy &
ences are between the testimony of males and females, or what Astur, 2005). In fact, superior male performance has only been
those differences are (Wells & Olson, 2003). The overall opinion demonstrated in spatial information memory, such as reading a
is that small differences exist, and that they are due to differences map (Loftus, Banaji, Schooler, & Foster, 1987). Females also outper-
in specific cognitive abilities (Astur, Ortiz, & Sutherland, 1998; form males when verbal content is used in memory recall tests
Lippa, 2005). (Lewin, Wolgers, & Herlitz, 2001; Loftus et al., 1987). Gender differ-
In their influential meta-analysis of a large number of face rec- ences are said to exist as a result of women’s superior verbal abil-
ognition studies, Shapiro and Penrod (1986) found that women ities, which contribute to greater memory recall (Herlitz &
performed better in face recognition, but made more mistakes than Rehnman, 2008). Research results for eyewitness testimony have
men. In order to explain this fact, they speculated that women shown a female advantage in the number of details and accuracy
of memory recall, perhaps due to the theory that females have
⇑ Tel.: +386 1 300 83 13; fax: +386 1 230 26 87. more elaborate categories for person information (Lindholn &
E-mail address: igor.areh@fvv.uni-mb.si Christianson, 1998).

0191-8869/$ - see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.11.027
560 I. Areh / Personality and Individual Differences 50 (2011) 559–563

In addition to higher episodic memory recall, females also dem- criminal acts. Out of the total, 161 (57.5%) participants were female
onstrated higher autobiographical memory recall, especially if the and 119 (42.5%) were male, with their ages ranging from 18 to
autobiographical memories had a strong emotional link (Seidlitz & 21 years (Me = 19). Their participation was voluntary.
Diener, 1998). Emotional information is not always the reason
underlying accurate and lasting memories, however, as females 2.2. Dependent variables
typically also recall more neutral memories than males (Bloise &
Johnson, 2007). Women’s autobiographical memories are more de- The accuracy and quantity of memory recall was established
tailed than men’s (Davis, 1999; Seidlitz & Diener, 1998). A female with the following formulas:
advantage in the accessibility and accuracy of autobiographical
P P P
memories is explained by two common hypotheses – according AMR = Xtd/( Xatd + Xfd).
to the first, women’s perception of reality is more emotionally AMR: accuracy of memory recall.
P
charged, making their information encoding more effective (Fujita, X : sum of true details given by a participant.
P td
Diener, & Sandvik, 1991), and according to the second, a gender dif- X : sum of all possible true details (constant value 85).
P atd
ference exists not only for encoding, but also for other two elemen- Xfd: sum of false details given by a participant.
P P P
tary memory processes: rehearsal, and retrieval of information QMR = ( Xtd + Xfd)/ Xd.
(Seidlitz & Diener, 1998). QMR: quantity of memory recall.
P
More often than males, females would think about and discuss X : sum of true details given by a participant.
P td
emotionally charged events, which leads to the conclusion that fe- X : sum of false details given by a participant.
P fd
males are more prone to rehearsing or processing emotionally Xd: sum of all details given in the checklist (constant
charged contents (Birditt & Fingerman, 2003; Harshman & Paivio, value 101).
1987; Schredl & Piel, 2003). Because a memory is strengthened
each time we consciously rehearse it or think about it, women tend 2.3. Instrument
to be superior in recalling emotionally charged contents (Baddeley,
1997; Karpicke & Roediger, 2006), and tend to create emotionally Memory recall was assessed using a feature checklist with a
charged autobiographical memories (Loftus et al., 1987). This is break-down of visual and audio event details. The reason for using
most probably also influenced by a common belief that women a checklist was that in free recall, descriptions of persons tend to be
are more emotionally oriented than men, creating expectations incomplete, which can either be the result of different criteria
in participants and influencing their responses in memory recall about what is seen as important for each eyewitness (Koriat &
tests (Loftus et al., 1987). Goldsmith, 1996), or a result of vocabulary differences (Meissner,
Differences in memory recall can also be attributed to different Sporer, & Schooler, 2007). For the first 20 items, participants had
levels of motivation, different expectations, and different experi- to select among answers which dealt with the description of the
ence. These factors all influence where attention is directed and place of the incident, the objects in the place, and the incident it-
how information is encoded into long-term memory (Colley, Ball, self. Participants selected the answer they believed was true; it
Kirby, Harvey, & Vingelen, 2002; McGivern et al., 1997). Women was also possible to answer with ‘‘I don’t know.’’ Next, they were
pay more attention to detail, for example to clothing (type of cloth- given 28 person descriptors to describe the face, clothing, and
ing, cut, and colour), to hair colour, hair length, hairstyle, and to shoes of a man, followed by 29 person descriptors for a woman.
jewellery and make-up, which all contributes to more accurate For each descriptor, they had to select one of six possible answers,
descriptions of persons (Loftus, 1996). Males outperform females and were then given one point for a correct answer, zero points for
in recognizing male-oriented objects, but females outperform answering with ‘‘I don’t know,’’ and 1 point for a false answer.
males both in recognizing female-oriented objects and neutral ob- After the checklist, participants looked at several seven-level Likert
jects (Loftus et al., 1987; McGivern et al., 1997; Powers, Andriks, & scales to assess the quality of their memories of the event, the man
Loftus, 1979). Evidence has shown superior female performance in and the woman, the location of the event, and their certainty in the
the recognition of female faces, most likely because women show memory.
greater interest in the appearance of members of their own sex
(Horgan, Schmid-Mast, Hall, & Carter, 2004; Rehnman & Herlitz, 2.4. Material
2007). Even though not all studies have confirmed gender differ-
ences in clothing descriptions (Yarmey, Jacob, & Porter, 2006), A two-minute film tape showing a violent robbery was made.
the prevailing opinion is that women are better at describing the First a woman can be seen descending stairs and walking towards
external appearance of both sexes (Loftus, 1996). an exit. Next, a man stops her in passing by and first asks her to
The aim of the research was to establish gender differences in ‘lend’ him a small sum of money (5 euros), and then demands
memory recall when participants are asked to describe an event the money from her. The woman keeps refusing, and the man be-
they believe to be true. Several hypotheses were made: (1) accu- comes increasingly agitated. Failing to get what he is asking, the
racy of memory recall shows a female advantage, (2) females out- man turns aggressive and physically assaults the woman, snatch-
perform males in the accuracy of person descriptions, (3) males are ing her purse and running out of the building. The film looks like
as reliable as females in describing an event without person a recording made by a colour surveillance camera mounted on
descriptors, (4) females outperform males in the quantity of mem- the staircase ceiling.
ory recall, and (5) males express a greater confidence in their mem-
ory, especially in the details of the place of an incident. 2.5. Procedure

Participants watched the film in small groups. Their viewing

2. Method schedule was planned so that students in different groups could
not meet each other and discuss the recording. At the beginning,
2.1. Participants the participants were asked not to discuss the recording, which
they were told was real – alleged authenticity of the recording
The research included 280 first-year undergraduate students was supposed to provide additional motivation. The participants
without prior theoretical knowledge on eyewitness accounts of were also told that the reason for watching the recording was to
 I. Areh / Personality and Individual Differences 50 (2011) 559–563 561

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) db t df Sig.c

Accuracy of memory about the incident (no personal descriptors) – true details M .56 (.11) .27 2.02 278 .044
F .53 (.11)
Memory recall of the man – true details M .58 (.11) .08 1.00 278 .317
F .59 (.13)
Memory recall of the man – false details M .21 (.11) .30 1.96 220.86 .051
F .18 (.09)
Memory recall of the woman – true details M .49 (.12) .48 3.91 278 .000
F .55 (.13)
Memory recall of the woman – false details M .29 (.13) .40 3.15 278 .002
F .24 (.12)
Memory about the place – accuracy M .65 (.15) .40 3.04 278 .003
F .71 (.15)
Accuracy of memory recall (AMR) M .50 (.07) .27 2.40 278 .017
F .52 (.08)
Quantity of memory recall (QMR) M .74 (.08) .00 .09 278 .925
F .74 (.09)

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) da t df Sig.b

Memory of the incident (1 = no details, 7 = full of details) M 3.38 (1.37) .10 .83 226.58 .133
F 3.25 (1.14)
Memory of the woman (1 = no details, 7 = full of details) M 3.55 (1.29) .05 .39 278 .695
F 3.61 (1.26)
Memory of the man (1 = no details, 7 = full of details) M 3.78 (1.30) .00 .00 277 .999
F 3.78 (1.25)
Memory of the place of the incident (1 = no details, 7 = full of details) M 4.64 (1.24) .31 2.51 277 .013
F 4.25 (1.31)
Confidence in one’s memory (1 = no conf., 7 = absolutely confident) M 4.32 (1.16) .24 1.97 278 .050
F 4.05 (1.12)

Note: Men: N = 119; women: N = 161.

a
Cohen’s d.
b
Two-tailed.

help criminal investigators determine whether their assumptions 4. Discussion

were correct. This was done in order to achieve higher ecological
validity of research results. We also assumed that participants The first hypothesis was that the accuracy of memory recall
would be more motivated to take part in the research if they were would favour females over males; this turned out to be true. The
convinced the event was real. The participants filled out their data for the accuracy of memory recall (Table 1) reveals that the
checklists one week after watching the recording. 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
3. Results account analyses (e.g. Lindholn & Christianson, 1998).
It was also assumed that females would outperform males in
The reliability of the checklist was determined with Cronbach’s the accuracy of memory recall connected with person descriptions.
a, which was .63. Since the total number of items on the checklist Since females pay more attention to the personal appearance of
is high (N = 101), the low value of Cronbach’s a can be explained other people, their overall memory recall of events is more accu-
with the low variability of answers – the participants were select- rate than men’s (Loftus, 1996). A female advantage in the overall
ing from a limited number of possible answers. accuracy of memory recall could also have been influenced by
Gender differences are most pronounced for victim description, the fact that 75% (57 out of 77) of the items from the checklist dealt
with females recalling significantly more true details than males, a with the victim’s and the assailant’s appearance. If males lost
finding supported by a medium effect size (d = .48). Somewhat points here, it was impossible for them to make the difference up
smaller but still significant are gender differences for false details over the 25% of remaining items which dealt with the incident
of the victim’s appearance, with females reporting fewer false de- description. The proportion used between the quantity of person
tails than males (d = .40). Females also outperformed males in descriptions and incident descriptions reflects a real-life police
place description. interview where investigators would mainly be concerned with
Table 2 shows superior male confidence in self-perceived accu- personal appearance. The results in Table 1 show that gender dif-
racy in the memory of the place of the incident, indicated by a ferences were the most apparent when participants were describ-
moderate effect size (d = .31). Similarly, males expressed greater ing the victim and the assailant. Men gave fewer true details in
self-perceived accuracy in the memory of the event. 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. their memory regarding the incident place, males might have been
Females, therefore, were more accurate in their description of the more confident than females as a result of this belief; females were
two subjects, which has also been shown by other researchers more reserved in their judgment than males. The belief that males
(Horgan et al., 2004; Loftus, 1996; Rehnman & Herlitz, 2007). The are superior in recalling spatial information is, after all, relatively
main reason for the differences in the accuracy of memory recall wide-spread (Halpern, 2000; Loftus et al., 1987), and it is possible
was, it would seem, the description of the victim. that males overestimated and females underestimated the quality
In their description of the victim, females gave more true, and of memory recall for the place of the incident as a result of this be-
fewer false, details. Some researchers believe that females are bet- lief. The self-perceived gender differences are connected with the
ter at describing members of their own sex because they pay more way they are manifested in research results (Crawford, Chaffin, &
attention to them (Loftus, 1996; McGivern et al., 1997). Another Fitton, 1995; Hamilton, 1995). Gender differences in the accuracy
possible reason why women focused on the victim more was that of total memory recall support the assumption that males overes-
they identified with her. The process of identification or empathy timate the accuracy of their memory recall – males are not as accu-
with the victim probably started while the recording was being rate, but nevertheless more confident than females.
watched, since the victim shares some characteristics with female Higher confidence in the memory of the place of the incident,
research participants: approximately the same age, a similar cloth- which, it appears, significantly contributed to overall higher confi-
ing style, and similar way of speaking. Since female participants dence in one’s memory, is probably due to the fact that participants
identified with the victim, they were probably more motivated to watched the incident scene at the beginning of the recording for
take part in the research. They also believed that this was a real-life approximately 10 s, during which time nothing else happened.
event being investigated by criminal investigators, and were there- Afterwards there was intensive interpersonal dynamics, and the
fore more motivated that the perpetrator be caught and brought to participants’ focus shifted to the verbal and non-verbal action. Low-
justice than men. Consequently, this kind of motivation can con- er confidence in the memory of the victim and the assailant is most
tribute to greater accuracy of memory recall. likely the result of a double attention focus when following the inter-
Results in Table 1 shows a slight male advantage in incident personal dynamics. The event was fast and stress-inducing, leaving
description, which is inconsistent with our hypothesis that there the participants with a feeling that it was difficult to both see and
are no gender differences in the accuracy of memory recall for hear exactly what was happening and resulting in lower confidence
event description. This might mean that the difference between fe- in their memory, whereas the initial frame with the place of the inci-
males and males in the accuracy of memory recall is prominent dent gave them enough time to focus on place details.
only when it includes person descriptions. Without person descrip-
tions, the difference is either smaller or non-existent, or, alterna-
5. Conclusion and limitations
tively, males can be even more reliable than females. Information
relating to personal appearance is extremely important in criminal
When assessing eyewitness reliability in criminal and court cases,
investigations, and women have to be considered as slightly more
it must be remembered that eyewitness confidence levels can be
reliable eyewitnesses in this respect. We should not forget, how-
misleading. Males tend to express unjustifiably greater confidence,
ever, that every eyewitness has to be thoroughly yet emphatically
making them seem more reliable and thus leading criminal investi-
interviewed in order for investigators to obtain useful information.
gators and judges to wrong conclusions. Females, on the other hand,
The fourth hypothesis proposed that females would outperform
tend to be less confident than males, but with equally misleading
males in the quantity of memory recall, but our results did not con-
results – the information they supply is often more accurate than
firm this. In fact, the quantity of memory recall (Table 1) is practi-
the information provided by males. Special attention should be paid
cally the same for both sexes – most likely due to the fact that
to gender-related differences for victim’s appearance; in this cate-
memory recall was limited to a checklist where participants could
gory, females outperformed males despite seeming less confident.
not freely add the details they might have recalled. It is possible
Nevertheless, caution should be exercised when applying these
that females noted details males did not, but these were not avail-
findings into practice. First of all, checklist reliability was only .63,
able in the given answers.
which means that error probability was 37%, and, second of all,
Males are more confident in assessing the reliability of their
study results are based on mock crime testimonies. For an actual
memory (Table 2) because they are more confident in their mem-
event, the level of stress and the sense of being threatened might
ory than females; a finding which is consistent with other
just have influenced gender-related differences.
researchers’ findings (e.g. Yarmey, 1993). The difference between
The method of ‘interviewing’ the participants was the main
genders is small, however, and if males are indeed more confident
weakness of our research and should be changed for the future.
in their memory there is little reason for them to be, since the accu-
Even though checklists have certain methodological advantages,
racy of memory recall showed a female advantage. Further analysis
they restrict the variability of possible answers; if the memory
of Table 2 results reveals that males were more confident espe-
recall instrument had been less structured, findings would have
cially in their memory of the place of the incident, since they
broader implications. Recreating a criminal investigation interview
assessed their memory as more detailed when compared to
would also be sensible, since it would not have been as structured
females, which is what we expected. There were no significant
as a checklist.
differences between the sexes for self-perceived accuracy in the
memory of the victim, the assailant, and the incident. It was estab-
lished that males were actually not more accurate in describing the References
place of the incident (Table 1), but that, in fact, females were supe- Astur, R. S., Ortiz, M. L., & Sutherland, R. J. (1998). A characterization of performance
rior. The difference was to be expected since females outperform by men and women in a virtual Morris water task: A large and reliable sex
males in perceiving changes and shifts in the scene (Hassan & difference. Behavioural Brain Research, 93, 185–190.
Baddeley, A. D. (1997). Human memory: Theory and practice (Revised ed). Hove:
Rahman, 2007), in recalling object locations and in object recogni-
Psychology Press Ltd..
tion (Eals & Silverman, 1994; Levy & Astur, 2005). Birditt, K. S., & Fingerman, K. L. (2003). Age and gender differences in adults’
The higher confidence of males in their memory of the place of descriptions of emotional reactions to interpersonal problems. Journal of
the incident might be explained by the belief that males have bet- Gerontology, 58B(4), 237–245.
Bloise, S. M., & Johnson, M. K. (2007). Memory for emotional and neutral
ter spatial ability than females, which could affect the confidence information: Gender and individual differences in emotional sensitivity.
in their memory (Loftus et al., 1987). In assessing the accuracy of Memory, 15(2), 192–204.
 I. Areh / Personality and Individual Differences 50 (2011) 559–563 563

Colley, A., Ball, J., Kirby, N., Harvey, R., & Vingelen, I. (2002). Gender-linked Lindsay, D. S. (2007). Autobiographical memory, eyewitness reports, and public
differences in everyday memory performance. Effort makes difference. Sex policy. Canadian Psychology, 48(2), 57–66.
Roles, 47, 577–582. Lippa, R. A. (2005). Gender, nature, and nurture (2nd ed.). Mahwah, New Jersey:
Crawford, M., Chaffin, R., & Fitton, L. (1995). Cognition in social context. Learning and Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Individual Differences, 7(4), 341–362. Loftus, E. F. (1996). Eyewitness testimony. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University
Davis, P. J. (1999). Gender differences in autobiographical memory for childhood Press.
emotional experiences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(3), Loftus, E. F., Banaji, M. R., Schooler, J. W., & Foster, R. (1987). Who remembers
498–510. what?: Gender differences in memory. Michigan Quarterly Review, 26, 64–85.
De Frias, C. M., Nilsson, L. G., & Herlitz, A. (2006). Sex differences in cognition are Marin, B., Holes, D., Guth, M., & Kovac, P. (1979). The potential of children as
stable over a ten-year period in adulthood and old age. Aging, Neuropsychology, eyewitnesses: A comparison of children and adults on eyewitness tasks. Law
and Cognition, 13, 574–587. and Human Behavior, 3, 295–306.
Eals, M., & Silverman, I. (1994). The hunter-gatherer theory of spatial sex McGivern, R. F., Huston, J. P., Byrd, D., King, T., Siegle, G. J., & Reilly, J. (1997). Sex
differences: Proximate factors mediating the female advantage in recall of differences in visual recognition memory: Support for a sex-related difference
object arrays. Ethology and Sociobiology, 15, 95–105. in attention in adults and children. Brain and Cognition, 34(3), 323–336.
Fujita, F. F., Diener, E., & Sandvik, E. (1991). Gender differences in negative affect and Meissner, C. A., Sporer, S. L., & Schooler, J. W. (2007). Person descriptions as eyewitness
well-being: The case for emotional intensity. Journal of Personality and Social evidence. In R. Lindsay, D. Ross, J. Read, & M. Toglia (Eds.), Handbook of eyewitness
Psychology, 61, 427–434. psychology: Memory for people (pp. 3–34). Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.
Halpern, D. F. (2000). Sex differences in cognitive abilities (3rd ed.). Hillsdale, NY: Powers, P. A., Andriks, J. L., & Loftus, E. F. (1979). Eyewitness accounts of females and
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. males. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64(3), 339–347.
Hamilton, C. J. (1995). Beyond sex differences in visuo-spatial processing: The Rehnman, J., & Herlitz, A. (2007). Women remember more faces than men do. Acta
impact of gender trait possession. British Journal of Psychology, 86, 1–20. Psychologica, 124(3), 344–355.
Harshman, R. A., & Paivio, A. (1987). ‘‘Paradoxical’’ sex differences in self-reported Scheck, B., Neufield, P., & Dywer, J. (2000). Actual innocence. New York: Doubleday.
imagery. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 41(3), 287–302. Schredl, M., & Piel, E. (2003). Gender differences in dream recall: Data from four
Hassan, B., & Rahman, Q. (2007). Selective sexual orientation-related differences in representative German samples. Personality and Individual Differences, 35(5),
object location memory. Behavioral Neuroscience, 121(3), 625–633. 1185–1189.
Herlitz, A., Nilsson, L.-G., & Bäckman, L. (1997). Gender differences in episodic Seidlitz, L., & Diener, E. (1998). Sex differences in the recall of affective experiences.
memory. Memory and Cognition, 25(6), 801–811. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(1), 262–271.
Herlitz, A., & Rehnman, J. (2008). Sex differences in episodic memory. Current Shapiro, P. N., & Penrod, S. (1986). Meta-analysis of facial identification studies.
Directions in Psychological Science, 17(1), 52–56. Psychological Bulletin, 100(2), 139–156.
Horgan, T. G., Schmid-Mast, M., Hall, J. A., & Carter, J. D. (2004). Gender differences Tulving, E. (1983). Elements of episodic memory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
in memory for the appearance of others. Personality and Social Psychology Tulving, E. (1993). Human memory. In P. Andersen, O. Hvalby, O. Paulsen, & B.
Bulletin, 30(2), 185–196. Hökfelt (Eds.), Memory concepts – 1993: Basic and clinical aspects (pp. 27–45).
Karpicke, J. D., & Roediger, H. L. III, (2006). Repeated retrieval during learning is the Amsterdam: Elsevier.
key to long-term retention. Journal of Memory and Language, 57(2), 151–162. Wells, G. L., & Olson, E. A. (2003). Eyewitness testimony. Annual Review of
Kebbell, M., & Milne, R. (1998). Police officers’ perception of eyewitness factors in Psychology, 54, 277–295.
forensic investigations. Journal of Social Psychology, 138, 323–330. Wright, D. B., & Sladden, B. (2003). An own gender bias and the importance of hair in
Koriat, A., & Goldsmith, M. (1996). Monitoring and control processes in the strategic face recognition. Acta Psychologica, 114, 101–114.
regulation of memory accuracy. Psychological Review, 103(3), 490–517. Yarmey, A. D. (1993). Adult age and gender differences in eyewitness recall in field
Levy, L. J., & Astur, R. S. (2005). Men and women differ in object memory but not settings. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23, 1921–1932.
performance of a virtual radial maze. Behavioral Neuroscience, 119(4), 853–862. Yarmey, A. D., Jacob, J., & Porter, A. (2006). Person recall in field settings. Journal of
Lewin, C., & Herlitz, A. (2002). Sex differences in face recognition: Women’s faces Applied Social Psychology, 32(11), 2354–2367.
make the difference. Brain and Cognition, 50, 121–128. Zelinski, E. M., Gilewski, M. J., & Schaie, K. W. (1993). Individual differences in cross-
Lewin, C., Wolgers, G., & Herlitz, A. (2001). Sex differences favoring women in verbal sectional and three-year longitudinal memory performance across the adult life
but not in visuospatial episodic memory. Neuropsychology, 15, 165–173. span. Psychology and Aging, 8(2), 176–186.
Lindholm, T., & Christianson, S. Å. (1998). Gender effects in eyewitness accounts of a Innocence Project (2010). Facts on Post-Conviction DNA Exonerations. Retrieved
violent crime. Psychology. Crime & Law, 4(4), 323–339. October 28, 2010, from www.innocenceproject.org/know/