Stress and Eyewitness Memory: What High Arousal Does to Recall
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: October 11, 2026 · Editorial Policy
Stress can change what an eyewitness notices, what becomes durable in memory, and what the witness can later retrieve. High arousal may strengthen memory for certain emotionally central elements while reducing access to faces, background details, or the order of events. The result depends on the stage of memory, the kind and intensity of stress, what the person attended to, the delay before testing, and the procedures used to obtain the account.
For legal purposes, the most consequential distinction is between remembering that a frightening incident occurred and accurately identifying who committed it. A witness can remember the danger clearly, describe an enduring sense of fear, and still make an identification error. Another witness can provide an incomplete, disorganized account that contains independently verifiable facts. The research requires examination of the evidence itself, rather than a credibility judgment based on how frightened, calm, certain, or emotionally expressive the witness appears.
This article reviews the specific forensic question addressed by the research on stress and eyewitness memory: how acute stress experienced during an event influences later recall and recognition, why experimental findings sometimes diverge, and what police, attorneys, courts, and witnesses can reasonably conclude.
What Does Stress Mean in Eyewitness Psychology?
In eyewitness research, stress usually refers to the psychological and physiological response to a perceived challenge or threat. Acute stress may involve heightened vigilance, changes in heart rate and blood pressure, autonomic activation, and activation of hormonal systems including the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal axis. Arousal is a related concept referring to the degree of physiological and psychological activation. Fear is an emotion; threat is a feature or appraisal of a situation. These processes frequently overlap, but their measures and effects are not interchangeable.
A witness confronted by a weapon, sudden assault, serious accident, or violent encounter may experience high arousal. The same incident may produce different responses across witnesses because their positions, expectations, exposure, prior experience, and sense of control differ. Researchers therefore distinguish experimentally assigned stress conditions from what participants actually experience, measured by self-report, heart rate, blood pressure, or cortisol. Those indicators sometimes diverge, as demonstrated in a laboratory investigation combining hormonal, cardiovascular, and subjective measures.
Forensic eyewitness memory means the encoding, storage, retrieval, and recognition of people or events that may later become evidence in a legal proceeding. It includes recalling a sequence or dialogue, describing a face, identifying a suspect from a lineup, and stating whether a person was present. Each task requires a different judgment and can produce different errors.
Stress is an estimator variable: a condition associated with the witnessed event that investigators cannot retroactively alter. Interview instructions, lineup composition, administrator behavior, repeated exposure, and feedback are system variables that can be controlled. The National Academies' eyewitness report makes this distinction central to evaluation of identification evidence.
The Short Answer: Does High Stress Make Eyewitness Memory Better or Worse?
Across the classic eyewitness literature, high stress was associated on average with poorer correct identification and less accurate recall. The influential Deffenbacher and colleagues meta-analysis synthesized 27 independent tests of eyewitness identification and 36 of recall; it reported overall negative effects of approximately −0.31 for the proportion of correct identifications and recall accuracy. This is a research summary of average performance differences, not the probability that a particular witness is mistaken.
That result remains important, but the modern evidence is more conditional. Different studies manipulate stress before an event, during an event, immediately afterward, or just before a memory test. Some study realistic threatening encounters; others combine a standardized laboratory stressor with neutral words or faces. The outcomes can differ because the memory tasks, physiological response, test timing, and relevance of the material differ. An integrative eyewitness review identifies these methodological distinctions as central to reconciling divergent findings.
A major meta-analysis of acute stress and episodic memory examined 113 independent studies involving 6,216 people. It found that timing and the relationship between the stressor and the material to be learned substantially moderated memory effects. In particular, stress can affect initial encoding, later consolidation, and retrieval in different directions.
The practical conclusion is that high stress is a legitimate memory-relevant condition and a reason for careful evidence evaluation. Its presence alone cannot establish either accuracy or inaccuracy.
How Stress Affects the Three Major Stages of Memory
Encoding: What the Witness Notices During the Incident
Encoding begins when the witness perceives and attends to aspects of the event. Under threat, attention may prioritize rapidly changing information connected to immediate safety: a weapon, a movement, an exit, a scream, or another salient action. This prioritization can leave fewer cognitive resources available for the person's facial features, clothing, peripheral individuals, background signs, or precise chronology.
A witness looking directly at an assailant is not necessarily encoding that person's face continuously. Visual attention shifts. The duration and quality of face exposure matter, as do distance, lighting, concealment, motion, and competing sources of attention. The National Academies' analysis of vision and memory explains why the contents of a vivid recollection are constrained by initial perception.
Stress also affects executive functions used to maintain and integrate information. A meta-analysis of acute stress and executive function found impairments in working memory and cognitive flexibility, with more nuanced effects on inhibition. Such findings illuminate possible mechanisms without predicting what any particular witness encoded.
Consolidation: What Persists After the Event
Consolidation refers to processes by which recently acquired information becomes more stable over time. Emotional arousal and stress-related hormonal systems can modulate consolidation, and emotionally meaningful aspects of an event may persist more strongly than ordinary background material. Accordingly, intense emotion sometimes contributes to enduring memory for significant elements.
Strengthening selected memories does not convert the entire event into a precise internal recording. Durable memories can preserve a core impression while omitting details or incorporating later information. An emotionally powerful recollection of a weapon or injury may coexist with uncertainty about the face of the person holding the weapon, the duration of a confrontation, or the exact wording of a statement.
The acute-stress meta-analysis distinguishes stress after learning from stress before or during learning. Findings about post-encoding consolidation should not be transferred automatically to an eyewitness trying to recognize a previously unfamiliar suspect.
Retrieval: What the Witness Can Report Later
Retrieval is the process of accessing stored information during an interview, lineup, testimony, or private recollection. A witness may encounter fresh stress when speaking with police, undergoing cross-examination, returning to a dangerous location, or viewing photographs. The emotional condition during retrieval can differ sharply from the condition during the original event.
Stress at retrieval may interfere with access to some details, but experiments also report null effects in particular tasks. In two preregistered studies of acute stress at encoding and retrieval, researchers verified stress manipulation using physiological and subjective measures but did not find effects on face recognition in the tested conditions. Such studies warn against a universal rule that retrieval under stress must damage identification performance.
When a witness initially cannot remember a detail and later recalls it, that sequence has multiple possible explanations, including changed retrieval cues, ordinary reconstruction, post-event information, and social influence. The later emergence of a detail, by itself, determines neither its truth nor its falsity.
Does Moderate Arousal Improve Memory While Extreme Arousal Harms It?
The popular inverted-U account proposes that performance rises with activation to an optimal point and deteriorates at higher activation. The idea can help explain why moderate task engagement sometimes supports attention and why overwhelming demands can impair it. It is insufficient as a case-specific forensic formula.
The relationship between stress and memory depends on whether stress is related to the information being encoded, which memory outcome is tested, when arousal occurs, and how long the stress response lasts. The Shields and colleagues synthesis documents moderators that a single inverted-U diagram conceals. One cannot measure a witness's fear retrospectively, place the witness at a point on a hypothetical curve, and calculate whether the identification should be trusted.
The more useful forensic questions concern the actual exposure and procedure: What information was accessible to the witness? How long was the face visible? Was attention drawn elsewhere? When was the first account recorded? What changed before the identification test?
Central Details, Peripheral Details, and the Meaning of Attention Narrowing
Researchers sometimes distinguish central details that matter directly to an event from peripheral details that are less relevant to its central action. In a threatening encounter, central material may include a weapon, an assault, the victim's movement, or the apparent direction of escape. Peripheral material may include nearby signs, clothing of bystanders, minor objects, and surrounding conversations.
However, the label central is not an objective property independent of the witness or question. A face can be central to a criminal investigation while peripheral to a frightened person's immediate task of avoiding injury. A visible weapon can dominate attention even when identifying its holder is the investigative priority.
This explains why remembering the threatening object well provides no guarantee of accurate identification of the person carrying it. It also explains why a missing peripheral detail is a limited indicator of deception. The National Academies emphasizes the importance of visual conditions, fear, attention, and their interactions, while acknowledging unresolved questions about relative effects.
A careful analysis records which details were initially reported, which were obtained after prompts, which were independently corroborated, and which may have been learned later. Calling a recollection vivid or fragmented is not enough.
Stress and Face Identification: Why the Forensic Stakes Are High
An identification from a photo array or live lineup asks a witness to judge whether one of the presented people is the person previously seen. Recognition is not identical to free recall. A person may provide a sparse verbal description but later recognize a familiar face; alternatively, a person may give a fluent narrative and choose the wrong suspect.
The Deffenbacher meta-analysis identified average impairing effects of high stress on identification, with substantial differences across study designs. Some of the reported differences were larger in target-present than target-absent lineups, illustrating why an overall effect size cannot be applied indiscriminately to every procedure.
Under target-present conditions the actual target is included; under target-absent conditions the actual target is missing. A useful evaluation must consider correct identifications, false identifications, filler identifications, and lineup rejections. Counting only correctly selected targets misses important errors when an innocent suspect is present.
A High-Stress Military Training Study
In a distinctive field-analog study, Morgan and colleagues investigated participants' memory for people encountered during demanding military survival training. Highly stressful interrogation conditions were associated with poorer identification performance. Its ecological intensity is a strength, yet the specialized training environment and participant population limit direct generalization to every crime witness.
Experiments That Find Little or No Effect
The literature also includes well-designed experiments with null findings. In a 2022 study by Price and colleagues, 129 participants experienced a modified stress induction and watched a staged theft. The researchers collected multiple stress measures and found no effect of induced stress on lineup accuracy or willingness to choose. The findings apply to that design and do not erase other studies showing impairment.
Likewise, Marr and colleagues' face recognition experiments found no effect despite validated manipulation. These results matter because they challenge overconfident assertions that the direction and magnitude of an effect are settled across all realistic settings.
Weapons, Threat, and the Weapon Focus Effect
The weapon focus effect concerns reduced attention or memory for some scene features when a weapon attracts attention. It can arise because the object is threatening, visually unusual, or particularly relevant to what the witness expects or fears. These explanations can overlap but have different implications.
The classic research and subsequent studies show that weapons can compete with memory for the person and surroundings. At the same time, effects vary with scene content, object novelty, viewing time, and method. The National Academies' eyewitness synthesis reports both the evidence for weapon-related attentional effects and unresolved questions about the contributions of stress and unusualness.
It is important to separate two questions: Did the witness experience high stress? Did the weapon direct attention away from other relevant information? A witness can focus on a weapon without measurable overwhelming stress, and can experience intense stress in an incident without a weapon. Neither condition automatically proves an identification error.
The dedicated question of weapon-related attention belongs to the EN-58 weapon-focus article when that canonical page is published; here, weapon focus is addressed as one mechanism connecting arousal to eyewitness encoding.
Does Stress Produce Better Memory for Emotional Events?
A frightening incident often feels unforgettable. Emotional significance may increase rehearsal, perceived importance, subjective clarity, and persistence of some information. Psychological research nonetheless distinguishes vividness from correspondence with the original event.
A witness may remain exceptionally confident that an incident took place while accurately recalling only selected details. Over time, conversations, media coverage, questioning, and repeated remembering may alter the accessible account. The original emotional intensity does not protect the memory from every later distortion.
For a broader discussion of trauma-related intrusive recollections, gaps, and narrative organization, see the published English Hub article Trauma and Memory: Intrusive Memories, Gaps, and Evidence. Its clinical and autobiographical focus is distinct from the present legal question of identifying a person or accurately reporting a witnessed event.
Acute Stress, Trauma, and PTSD Are Different Questions
Acute stress during an incident is a temporary psychophysiological response. Trauma refers to a profoundly distressing or threatening experience, and its meaning varies across clinical, scientific, and everyday contexts. Post-traumatic stress disorder is a clinical diagnosis defined by specific criteria and functional impact. A witness can experience acute fear without developing PTSD, and a person with PTSD is not necessarily an unreliable witness.
Likewise, a diagnosis does not determine the veracity of testimony. Some trauma survivors recall important details accurately; some people who do not report trauma make eyewitness errors. The forensic task concerns what the witness observed, how memory was tested, and what external evidence is available.
Clinical symptom severity, eyewitness accuracy, confidence, and legal credibility are different constructs. An assessment score used in treatment should not be treated as a numerical estimate of identification accuracy.
Does the Person's Response During an Event Predict Later Accuracy?
There is no established single behavioral indicator that allows investigators to infer memory quality from an eyewitness's visible demeanor. Crying, freezing, shouting, appearing calm, or speaking in a flat tone can reflect individual differences and situational demands. None serves as a validated stand-alone measure of whether the person has correctly identified a suspect.
Nor does retrospective self-reported stress translate into a calibrated probability that a particular detail is true. Stress research often compares groups under defined conditions. Such group averages have limited value for an individual case without knowing the original exposure, the evidence-collection procedure, and relevant corroboration.
The Marr et al. survey of memory experts and laypeople also illustrates disagreement about the broad stress-memory relationship. That disagreement supports precise, outcome-specific expert statements rather than generalized slogans.
What About Police Officers and Other Trained Witnesses?
Training can alter attention, recognition of situational cues, decision strategies, and response to danger. It cannot turn human memory into a continuous video record. Law-enforcement officers, emergency personnel, military personnel, security staff, and civilians can all be affected by poor visibility, divided attention, delayed testing, and suggestion.
Experiments involving professional or military populations offer valuable models of high-stress encounters, but selection, training protocols, equipment, operational context, and experimental constraints make generalization complex. In a 2024 study of police recall after simulated critical incidents, interview and written-statement methods differed for some peripheral information, whereas central information was comparatively stable across methods. This is a bounded training study rather than proof of a universal advantage for any recall technique.
An officer's occupational experience may inform the interpretation of tactical movements yet be unrelated to accurate recognition of an unfamiliar face. Case evaluation should examine concrete opportunities to observe rather than presuming either professional immunity or special impairment.
The Relationship Between Stress, Confidence, and Accuracy
Confidence describes a witness's expressed certainty. Accuracy describes agreement with ground truth. The two are related under some carefully controlled identification conditions, but the relationship is not fixed across every interview, repeated identification, or courtroom statement.
Feedback that confirms a choice, repeated exposure to a suspect's photograph, or discussions with other witnesses can influence confidence after the initial memory test. High confidence expressed in court months later is therefore different evidence from a contemporaneous confidence statement documented immediately after an uncontaminated lineup.
A witness's emotional arousal during the original event is only one relevant feature of the evidence. The American Psychology-Law Society recommendations address prompt interviewing, appropriate lineup design, double-blind administration, recording, and confidence statements, precisely because later procedures affect what can be inferred from an identification.
For the specialized interpretation of initial confidence and accuracy, see Eyewitness Confidence and Accuracy: When Confidence Is Informative. This article addresses what stress changes in memory, while that companion page owns confidence–accuracy calibration.
Can High Stress Cause False Memories?
Stress, attention, and reconstructive remembering can create conditions in which some details are poorly encoded or later misattributed. Post-event misinformation can be incorporated into an account even when the original incident was important or frightening. Nevertheless, stress alone is not proof that a witness developed a false memory, and no simple rule predicts which detail will be distorted.
A later conversation may provide information the witness did not perceive personally. Repeated questions may create pressure to infer an answer. Publicly shared video or media accounts may introduce images and phrases that become familiar. These risks concern source monitoring and contamination as well as original encoding conditions.
The separate EN-58 canonical article The Misinformation Effect in Eyewitness Memory examines how misleading post-event information changes recall. That mechanism should be investigated separately from whether the original incident was stressful.
Free Recall, Recognition, and Narrative Consistency
Free recall asks a witness to describe the event in the witness's own words. Cued recall requests particular details, ideally without suggestive assumptions. Recognition tasks ask whether presented information, such as a photograph, matches a remembered person. Each format changes the retrieval demands and opportunities for error.
An account that is short or chronologically uneven may reflect fragmented initial attention, ordinary retrieval difficulty, uncertainty, interview interruptions, or incomplete opportunity to observe. Conversely, an orderly account can contain an inaccurate identification. Consistency can be relevant when considering a claim, but consistency alone is neither validation nor disproof.
The strongest investigative practice records an early account in an open-ended format, carefully preserves spontaneous and prompted information, and documents uncertainty. Subsequent changes should be interpreted against the interview history and exposure to outside information.
What Investigators Can Do to Preserve Eyewitness Evidence
The original threat cannot be undone, but the later procedure can be designed to reduce avoidable contamination. According to the 2020 American Psychology-Law Society scientific recommendations, investigators should obtain and record an initial account promptly when feasible, establish an evidence-based reason to place a suspect in a lineup, use appropriate fillers, employ double-blind administration, give proper instructions, document an immediate confidence statement, avoid unnecessary repeated identification procedures, and video-record relevant procedures.
Safety and humane treatment are also essential. A distressed witness may need medical attention, rest, accommodations, or a pause. Such support need not imply that investigators should use leading questions or encourage guesses. Allowing someone to say they do not know is an evidence-preservation measure as well as a respectful one.
If the witness reports extreme stress, document the person's description and relevant circumstances while avoiding a retrospective conversion of visible emotion into an objective stress measure. Preserve the timing of the first description, the actual wording of questions, the witness's own uncertainty, exposure to media or other witnesses, and all lineup outcomes, including rejection.
For procedures, choices between lineups and showups, and risks of mistaken selection, see Eyewitness Identification: Lineups, Showups, and Best Practices. The investigative safeguards apply regardless of whether the witness reports low, moderate, or high arousal.
What Courts and Forensic Experts Can Conclude
A forensic expert can explain established research mechanisms, review the documented circumstances, and identify conditions that generally affect eyewitness perception or memory. An expert may also explain that scientific studies are heterogeneous, that a given feature has no validated individual-level likelihood ratio, or that critical information about the procedure is missing.
Psychological research does not itself decide guilt, innocence, admissibility, or legal credibility. The judge or jury evaluates the evidence under jurisdiction-specific rules; an expert's psychological opinion occupies a different role from the legal finding. Federal and state evidentiary rules, expert admissibility standards, and jury instructions may differ, and a procedure permitted in one jurisdiction may be treated differently in another.
The correct expert question is how a documented condition bears on scientific reliability, including the uncertainty of that inference. Stress is not a clinical diagnosis, an assessment instrument, a psychometric score, a legal standard, a criminal-responsibility finding, or a prediction that the witness will identify correctly or incorrectly.
Why an Average Effect Size Does Not Produce an Individual Error Rate
Suppose studies report lower average recognition accuracy under greater stress. That group comparison does not answer whether this witness's choice was correct. A calibrated individual probability would require suitable base rates, matched populations, clearly defined test outcomes, and evidence on the actual conditions. Most eyewitness-stress studies do not provide such a case-specific prediction system.
False positives and false negatives also depend on how performance is defined. In a lineup, identifying an innocent suspect, selecting a filler, and incorrectly rejecting a present culprit are distinct outcomes. Research based solely on correct identification rates cannot establish the complete error profile of every lineup.
Differences in age, language, culture, vision, health, training, experimental population, and crime context further limit transfer. There is no validated stress-to-truth calculation for a particular witness.
Research Quality: Laboratory, Field Analogs, and Real Criminal Cases
Laboratory designs offer controlled comparisons, known ground truth, randomized conditions, and detailed measurement. They can isolate a mechanism but usually cannot ethically reproduce the danger and lasting consequences of violent crime. A videotaped theft, staged confrontation, cold-water stressor, or public-speaking challenge is not equivalent to surviving an actual assault.
Field-analog studies may evoke more intense responses and capture meaningful behavior under complex demands. They may still differ from criminal events in participant selection, preparedness, exposure, consequence, and opportunities for later rehearsal. Observational studies of actual cases confront additional problems: unknown ground truth, incomplete records, selective reporting, and inability to assign stress experimentally.
The 2021 integrative review specifically recommends better verification of stress inductions, suitable delays between phases, and more ecologically valid designs. The combination of laboratory precision and field realism is more informative than declaring one kind of study decisive.
What the Evidence Supports and What Remains Uncertain
The evidence supports treating stress and fear during a witnessed event as factors that can influence attention, encoding, and later memory. The original eyewitness meta-analysis found average reductions in identification and recall performance under higher stress; basic episodic-memory research shows that timing and stressor relevance can change the effect; modern experiments demonstrate variability and some null outcomes.
Unresolved questions include the precise effects of different types of threat on distinct identification tasks, the extent to which physiological biomarkers improve predictions, how stress interacts with age and experience, and how closely experimental paradigms map onto real-world crimes. Studies also vary in whether they record spontaneous recall, cued details, correct identification, false identification, or confidence.
Claims that every frightened eyewitness is inaccurate, every vivid traumatic recollection is correct, trained witnesses are immune to memory errors, or cortisol levels reveal whether an identification is true exceed the current evidence.
Myths and Misconceptions
“A traumatic event is permanently recorded in exact detail.”
An emotionally important event can produce a lasting memory of some features, but memory is selective, reconstructive, and vulnerable to incomplete encoding and later information. The emotional quality of recollection is a separate dimension from factual accuracy.
“A calm eyewitness is more accurate than a frightened one.”
Visible calm is not a validated stand-alone predictor of identification accuracy. Witness demeanor depends on numerous factors and may change across the incident, interview, and testimony.
“High stress always destroys memory.”
Average adverse effects in a literature do not imply that every memory component deteriorates. The task, timing, conditions, and type of information matter, and some experiments find null effects.
“If the witness accurately recalls a weapon, the face must also be accurate.”
Attention to a threatening object can compete with attention to a face. Memory for one salient component does not establish the fidelity of other components.
“An expert can calculate the chance that a stressed witness is lying.”
A stress-memory study does not measure deception and does not supply a general individual truth probability. Truthfulness, genuine mistaken memory, and deliberate fabrication require separate evidentiary analysis.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does adrenaline make eyewitness memory sharper?
Acute arousal can increase salience and modulate consolidation for particular information. That does not guarantee better facial identification or a complete chronology. The response varies across memory phases and experimental conditions.
Does extreme fear cause people to forget an entire event?
Severe distress can affect attention and later retrieval, and some witnesses report gaps. The existence, mechanism, or accuracy of a particular gap requires careful evaluation. Fear does not establish that a specific event was encoded and then entirely erased.
Can a person accurately remember the attack but misidentify the attacker?
Yes. Memory for the occurrence and significance of an incident and recognition of an unfamiliar face are distinct outcomes. Viewing conditions, competing attention, and later lineup procedures affect identification.
Are eyewitnesses under high stress always less accurate?
No. Studies show average negative effects in important settings, but considerable variability across tasks and methods; some controlled experiments detect no effect. A specific identification must be evaluated on its own evidence.
Should police wait until a frightened witness is completely calm?
Investigators should prioritize safety and the witness's ability to participate, avoid coercion, and obtain a documented initial account when feasible. There is no universal evidence-based waiting period that makes memory accurate. Unnecessary delay also creates opportunities for forgetting or contamination.
Can stress hormones reveal whether an eyewitness is reliable?
Heart rate and cortisol can help verify responses in research, but neither is a validated individualized truth test or a reliable forensic accuracy score. The relation between physiology and subsequent memory depends on multiple factors.
Does PTSD make a witness's testimony unreliable?
A PTSD diagnosis cannot establish that a particular memory is accurate or inaccurate. Testimony must be assessed using the witnessed conditions, interview history, the identification procedure, and corroborating evidence.
What matters more than a witness's emotional appearance?
Documented opportunity to observe, timing and wording of first reports, freedom from suggestion, fair lineup construction, double-blind administration, immediate confidence documentation, and independent corroboration provide more probative information than interpreting demeanor alone.
Related Articles
References
Deffenbacher, K. A., Bornstein, B. H., Penrod, S. D., & McGorty, E. K. (2004). A meta-analytic review of the effects of high stress on eyewitness memory. Law and Human Behavior, 28(6), 687–706. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-004-0565-x
Marr, C., Otgaar, H., Sauerland, M., Quaedflieg, C. W. E. M., & Hope, L. (2021). The effects of stress on eyewitness memory: A survey of memory experts and laypeople. Memory & Cognition, 49(3), 401–421. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-020-01115-4
Marr, C., Quaedflieg, C. W. E. M., Otgaar, H., Hope, L., & Sauerland, M. (2021). Facing stress: No effect of acute stress at encoding or retrieval on face recognition memory. Acta Psychologica, 219, 103376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2021.103376
Marr, C., Sauerland, M., Otgaar, H., Quaedflieg, C. W. E. M., & Hope, L. (2021). The effects of acute stress on eyewitness memory: An integrative review for eyewitness researchers. Memory, 29(8), 1091–1100. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2021.1955935
Morgan, C. A., III, Hazlett, G., Doran, A., Garrett, S., Hoyt, G., Thomas, P., Baranoski, M., & Southwick, S. M. (2004). Accuracy of eyewitness memory for persons encountered during exposure to highly intense stress. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 27(3), 265–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2004.03.004
National Research Council. (2014). Identifying the culprit: Assessing eyewitness identification. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18891
Price, H. L., Sykes Tottenham, L., Hatin, B., Fitzgerald, R. J., & Rubínová, E. (2022). Effects of stress on eyewitness identification in the laboratory. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 36(1), 191–202. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3910
Roscoe, M. J., Gough, S., Orr, R., & Baumann, O. (2024). A comparison of recall methods for high-stress critical incidents in police training. Heliyon, 10(17), e36562. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e36562
Shields, G. S., Sazma, M. A., & Yonelinas, A. P. (2016). The effects of acute stress on core executive functions: A meta-analysis and comparison with cortisol. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 68, 651–668. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.06.038
Shields, G. S., Sazma, M. A., McCullough, A. M., & Yonelinas, A. P. (2017). The effects of acute stress on episodic memory: A meta-analysis and integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 143(6), 636–675. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000100
Wells, G. L., Kovera, M. B., Douglass, A. B., Brewer, N., Meissner, C. A., & Wixted, J. T. (2020). Policy and procedure recommendations for the collection and preservation of eyewitness identification evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 44(1), 3–36. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000359