Abstract
The debate between McCloskey and Egeth and Loftus concerning the usefulness of expert psychological testimony in court serves here as the springboard for an essay-review of a significant part of its context, a retrospective evaluation of Loftus's book Eyewitness Testimony. The partisanship evident in the book provides a case study of the unusual vulnerability of psychology, in policy contexts, to overgeneralization and underqualification of small average effects.
Full Text 
Sign-in/Register to access full text options
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Published version (
Free)
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
