Personality and Individual Differences 164 (2020) 110093

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Sex differences in eyewitness memory: Females are more accurate than T

males for details related to people and less accurate for details surrounding
them, and feel more anxious and threatened in a neutral but potentially
threatening context☆
⁎
Mitchell G. Longstaff , Geoffrey K. Belz
Discipline of Psychology, School of Health & Human Sciences, Southern Cross University, Hogbin Drive, Coffs Harbour, NSW 2450, Australia

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Witness memory can be affected by individual differences and event-related factors. This study examined sex
Sex differences differences in witness memory and associated differences in perceptions and feelings in a neutral but potentially
Eyewitness memory threatening event context. One hundred fifteen participants (77 female, mean age 39.7; 38 male, mean age 40.5)
Evolutionary psychology completed an online experiment where they viewed a short point of view recording of a person walking around a
Attention
building they were helping renovate. The person unexpectedly encountered a stranger holding an object, who
Anxiety
Fear of crime
was later revealed to be either male or female. After this encounter, the video paused, and the participants
answered questions after this and at the end. Female participants were more accurate than males for stranger
related details and less accurate than males for details related to the surroundings. For females, this was ac-
companied by greater anxiety and perceptions that the stranger was threatening, and a more accurate perception
of the sex of the stranger. Results are discussed in terms of individual differences, social/developmental and
evolutionary factors.

1. Introduction
Event memory is important in everyday life, but crucial to the
criminal justice system (Wells & Olson, 2003). Despite advances in
forensic science and DNA testing, witness memory plays a vital role to
begin and progress an investigation - from identifying that a crime has
occurred to providing basic details related to the victim, the perpetrator
and the event itself. The witnesses might later testify at trial. Although
eyewitness testimony has long been a key element in court cases, from
the 1900s and earlier to more recently, research has highlighted flaws
in witness memory (e.g. Brewer, Weber, & Guerin, 2020; Loftus &
Palmer, 1974; Münsterberg, 1908). Eyewitness testimony often pro-
vides highly important evidence and can be very persuasive to jurors
(Wells & Olson, 2003). As such, we want minimal distortion and bias in
observations (Werner, Kühnel, & Markowitsch, 2013). While eye-
witness testimony is necessary, inaccurate or insufficiently detailed
memory can lead to cases of wrongful conviction (Houston, Hope,
Memon, & Read, 2013). It is therefore essential to understand not only
witness reliability in general but under what circumstances they are
more or less reliable and what factors can affect memory accuracy/
detail.
With all the potential information an individual could process, it is
unsurprising that witnesses to the same event who have individual
differences (e.g. sex, age, personality, life experiences) could have
discrepancies in their testimony (Frenda, Nichols, & Loftus, 2011; Pauls,
Petermann, & Lepach, 2013; Powers, Andriks, & Loftus, 1979). The
capacity of an individual to witness details during an event then ef-
fectively recall that information is dependent on what they attend to
(Wright, Loftus, & Hall, 2001). One eyewitness may focus mainly on
faces (Jenkins & Davies, 1985), while others may focus on the en-
vironment surrounding the event (Areh, 2011). Memories of details
related to people involved in an event such as their size, age and facial
features can be distorted by a range of factors. These include individual
differences, event factors and post-event information. Memory errors
and distortions are particularly likely if witnesses were focusing on
other details during the event (Werner et al., 2013).
Observations can be encoded and processed differently depending
how the individual perceives an event (Clifford & Hollin, 1981),

☆
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: mitchell.longstaff@scu.edu.au (M.G. Longstaff).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110093
Received 5 December 2019; Received in revised form 25 April 2020; Accepted 25 April 2020
0191-8869/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M.G. Longstaff and G.K. Belz
including whether the incident is emotionally arousing and anxiety-
inducing, or if there is an apparent threat. The “weapon focus effect”
shows that when a weapon is present, attention can be drawn to the
threat/object and away from other details, leading to better memory for
the threat/object-related details and worse for other details (e.g.
Fawcett, Peace, & Greve, 2016). This can affect overall accuracy which
depends on both the recollection of individuals and the environment
around them (Andersen, Carlson, Carlson, & Gronlund, 2014). While
this effect might be related to arousal/threat, there is also evidence that
it is caused by the salience/unusualness of the object within the parti-
cular context (Fawcett et al., 2016; Shaw & Skolnick, 1999).
A potential mediating factor in the perception and memory of
events is the sex of the eyewitness (Areh, 2011; Loftus, Banaji, Schooler,
& Foster, 1987; Shapiro & Brooks, 2018). Sex differences in verbal,
episodic and spatial memory have been observed in a range of domains
(McGivern et al., 1998). There is evidence of sex differences in memory
formation due to differences in specific brain areas (e.g. hippocampus)
and how they function (Mizuno & Giese, 2010). While there is evidence
of sex differences, there are inconsistencies and contradictory findings,
with some studies suggesting males are more accurate (Cunningham &
Bringmann, 1986) while others suggest females are more accurate
(Loftus, Levidow, & Duensing, 1992). This might be due to differences
in methods, the event context or the specific memory details assessed.
As such, further research is warranted. Importantly, while there may be
differences in what males and females remember, overall event memory
might be equally accurate and detailed (Loftus et al., 1987).
Studies indicate that females outperform males in recognising other
individuals through having stronger visual recognition memory
(McGivern et al., 1998) with better encoding and retrieval of facial
features (Heisz, Pottruff, & Shore, 2013; Rehnman & Herlitz, 2007) and
overall appearance (Mast & Hall, 2006). In an eyewitness context, fe-
males have been found to have superior memory for people (Areh,
2011), possibly due to them focussing on person details at the expense
of other details (Mast & Hall, 2006; Rehnman & Herlitz, 2007). This
trade-off led to worse performance for females regarding details of the
event and the surrounding environment. Males tend to focus more on
stimuli in the environment around the event, providing relatively more
accurate information on what they observed (Postma, Jager, Kessels,
Koppeschaar, & van Honk, 2004). Furthermore, there is evidence for
sex differences in cognitive schemas related to crime, criminals and
gender, with same-sex bias, male-as-criminal preference and greater
accuracy when thieves exhibit gender-role consistent characteristics
(Shapiro & Brooks, 2018).
The above research indicates there is evidence for biological and
behavioural sex differences in memory processes and related brain ac-
tivity and resulting performance. These differences could be explained
from an evolutionary perspective (Stoet, 2011) which views human
behaviour as a product of evolved psychological mechanisms that de-
pend on internal and environmental input for their development, acti-
vation, and expression (Barkow, Cosmides, & Tooby, 1992). Traits that
improve the chance of survival are likely to be passed on, and as such
we can interpret traits in terms of their survival benefit (Nairne,
VanArsdall, Pandeirada, & Blunt, 2012). It is argued that evolutionary
processes led to differences in the pre-frontal cortex of ancestral men
and women (Coolidge & Wynn, 2005), with males having stronger vi-
suospatial memory (an advantage when hunting) and females having
greater object location memory (an advantage when foraging)
(Cosmides & Tooby, 2013). Furthermore, the superiority of female
perception of faces and facial emotion is argued to be an evolutionary
adaptation related to their near-universal responsibility for child-
rearing (Hampson, van Anders, & Mullin, 2006).
An additional sex difference linked to evolutionary pressures is that
females tend to be more fearful of crime, particularly where there is the
potential for injury (Chadee, Ali, Burke, & Young, 2017). This could be
due to sex selection that favoured risk-taking in males, but caution and
protecting children in females (Fetchenhauer & Buunk, 2005).
2
Personality and Individual Differences 164 (2020) 110093
However, gender socialisation (van Eijk, 2017), risk of victimisation
and pragmatic fear can also play mediating roles. More generally, there
appears to be a bias towards perceiving others as male, particularly in
ambiguous and fearful contexts, while accurate judgements are made
with clearer stimuli (Johnson, Iida, & Tassinary, 2012). This is inter-
preted from an evolutionary perspective where unknown men pose a
potential threat and as such the bias is functional – the costs of mis-
identifying a male being greater than the costs of misidentifying a fe-
male (Johnson et al., 2012). This is further supported by the finding
that when people perceive an outgroup as dangerous, attention is
drawn selectively to outgroup males (Maner & Miller, 2013).
It appears from the evidence that there are some sex differences in
memory performance due to biological-based tendencies, factors re-
lated to attentional focus, or both. Innate tendencies towards sex dif-
ferences may lead females to remember people better, and a heightened
fear of crime could enhance this with a greater focus on person details
to the detriment of surrounding details. The present study aims to ex-
amine sex differences in witness memory in a context that could be
either neutral/unthreatening or threatening, depending on how the
witness spontaneously perceives it. The context involves a witness
being alone in an unfamiliar building with many places where an as-
sailant could hide, and where a stranger suddenly appears walking
towards them holding what could be a weapon or context-appropriate
tool (a hammer). The stranger could be viewed as harmless or poten-
tially an assailant. Previous research has looked at sex differences in
witness memory (e.g. Areh, 2011) and own-gender bias (e.g. Wright &
Sladden, 2003). We build on this work to further explore whether the
sex of the stranger, the sex of the witness, or both moderates memory
for the event and the perception of the stranger. We also examined if
differences in memory are accompanied by sex differences in anxiety or
the perceived sex or threat of the stranger.
We hypothesise that while male and female participants would have
similar memory accuracy overall, females would have better memory
for the stranger and be better at perceiving the sex of the stranger. This
would suggest that they were more focussed on the stranger compared
to the male participants. Accuracy (particularly for stranger details)
would increase after the participants had more time to view the
stranger and other details. We hypothesise that there would be a bias in
the perception of the sex of the stranger as being more male, but with
more accurate perceptions after they had been viewed for longer. We
also hypothesise that females would be more anxious and feel more
threatened compared to males and that although anxiety and threat
perceptions would drop after the stranger was seen for longer and their
behaviour was innocuous, females would tend to remain more anxious
and fearful compared to males.
2. Method
2.1. Participants
115 participants were recruited via email from a University com-
munity (77 female, mean age = 39.7, SD = 13.2; 38 male, mean
age = 40.5, SD = 13.2). Participants were randomly assigned to con-
ditions, resulting in 67 participants (42 females) in the male stranger
condition and 48 participants (35 females) in the female stranger
condition. The study was approved by the University Human Research
Ethics Committee.
2.2. Design
Memory accuracy was analysed with a 2x2x2x3 mixed ANOVA,
with Stranger (female/male) and Witness (female/male) as the be-
tween-subjects factors, and Time (before/after first seeing the stranger)
and Question-Focus (general details; related to the stranger; related to
the surroundings of the stranger) as within-subjects factors. The de-
pendent variable was percent accuracy. The sex of stranger, anxiety and
M.G. Longstaff and G.K. Belz Personality and Individual Differences 164 (2020) 110093

threat level ratings were analysed with 2x2x2 mixed ANOVAs with and asked to complete the online experiment in one sitting (approxi-
Stranger and Witness as between-subjects factors and Time as the mately 15 min) in a distraction-free location. Participants were in-
within-subjects factor. Greenhouse-Geisser corrections were applied as formed to turn the sound on to hear the dialogue, and there would be
appropriate. Participant numbers varied slightly in each analysis due to event-related questions. Participants were presented demographic
missing values (specific questions not answered). questions and a narrative text priming the location and reason for being
there (see supplementary materials) before the first section of the video.
2.3. Materials They were then asked questions related to the video, watched the
second section of the video and asked further questions.
2.3.1. Video stimuli
There were two short films, split into two sections, displaying a
3. Results
point of view (POV) representation of a person walking down a hallway
of a building needing renovation, looking into rooms along the hallway,
3.1. Accuracy
some of which were empty while others included items such as old
abandoned furniture and storage boxes. In order to promote a more
The analysis of the accuracy data revealed a significant effect of
authentic reaction, the event was presented from the POV of a witness
Time, F(1,111) = 19.482, P < .0005, ηp2 = 0.149, with higher overall
encouraging the perception they were actually at the scene engaging in
accuracy for questions answered after the stranger had been viewed for
the activities and witnessing the events. The first section of each video
longer (50.0%, se = 2.0) compared to questions answered just after the
was identical up to the last part where a male or female stranger ap-
stranger first appeared (40.0%, se = 1.6) and a significant effect of
peared. The second section included the same actions in both versions,
Question-Focus (using the Greenhouse-Geisser correction) F(1.88,
but the stranger was either male or female.
208.88) = 34.283, P < .0005, ηp2 = 0.236, with higher accuracy for
The first sequence was 91 s long. From the POV of the participant
stranger related questions (54.6%, se = 2.4) compared to general
(i.e. the POV-Character), they met two supervisors in the building who
questions (44.4%, se = 1.7), with least accuracy for surroundings re-
were going to a hardware store and told that: The POV-Character could
lated questions (35.6%, se = 1.8). There was no significant effect for
start the cleaning while they were away; They could be alone in the
Witness F(1,111) < 0.0005, P = .990, ηp2 < 0.0005, Stranger F
building, but as this was a community project there might be other
(1,111) = 1.077, P = .302, ηp2 = 0.010, or the Witness X Stranger
people; The power should be on in 30 min so check the fuse box after
interaction F(1,111) = 0.376, P = .990, ηp2 < 0.0005.
that. The supervisors leave and the POV-Character walks down the
There were significant interactions for Question-Focus X Witness F
hallway, looking around and into rooms. Although it is bright daylight,
(2,222) = 3.489, P = .032, ηp2 = 0.030 and Question-Focus X
there are many shadows. The POV-Character walks into a room, looks
Stranger F(2,222) = 4.752, P = .010, ηp2 = 0.041. Fig. 1 shows both
around then down at rubbish on the floor. The video fades out and back
male and female participants had similar accuracy for general ques-
with a glance at a clock and the now tidy room demonstrating 30 min
tions, higher accuracy for stranger related questions (with female par-
had passed. Since the power has not come on, the POV-Character leaves
ticipants' accuracy higher), and lowest accuracy for surroundings re-
the room and continues looking around as they walk down the hallway
lated questions (with male participants' accuracy higher). Fig. 2 shows
searching for the fuse box. They stop in the hallway and look into a
general question accuracy was similar in both the male and female
room. As they turn back around, a stranger holding a weapon-like ob-
stranger conditions (slightly lower in the female condition), higher for
ject (a hammer) walks into view at the end of the hallway and the video
stranger related questions (with the highest accuracy for the female
stops. Depending on the condition, this stranger is either male or fe-
stranger), and lowest accuracy for surroundings related questions (si-
male.
milar for the male and female stranger).
The participant viewed the second sequence after answering some
There was also a significant Question-Focus X Time interaction F
questions. It lasts 12 s, beginning where the first sequence concluded.
(2,222) = 35.415, P < .0005, ηp2 = 0.242. When comparing ques-
The POV-Character walks towards the stranger but before they get to
tions related to events up to first seeing the stranger to those after
them, the stranger walks into a room off the hallway. The POV-
observing the stranger for longer, there was a slight increase in accu-
Character continues walking, looking into the room that the stranger
racy for general questions (42.5%, se = 1.4 to 46.4%, se = 2.7), a
entered then continues down the hallway until the video ends. The
objects and events observed are the same for both videos other than the
stranger being a male or female. The stranger was dressed to make their 80 Female Parcipant
sex ambiguous at first (loose-fitting dark jacket with hood, face in Male Parcipant
shadow), but obvious as they walked closer (they removed the hood 70
from their head, face exposed).
Accuracy (percent correct)

60
2.3.2. Questions about the event
The main memory questions were four-option multiple choice.
Some questions asked after the first video were repeated following the 50
second video. There were three types of questions: general questions
(e.g. hallway/rooms details e.g. “What was the colour of the bin in
40
which the rubbish was placed?”); questions about the stranger (e.g.
“What was the stranger holding?”); questions about things near/sur-
rounding the stranger (e.g. “Is there an object sticking up behind the 30
stranger?”). Responses were scored correct if they matched the details
in the video. Participants were also asked to rate their feelings (e.g. how
20
anxious) and perceptions (e.g. the sex and threat of the stranger) on General Stranger Around Stranger
Likert scales.
Queson Focus

2.4. Procedure
Fig. 1. Mean accuracy for male and female participants for each question focus.
Participants were assigned to the male or female stranger condition Vertical lines represent one standard error of the mean.

3
M.G. Longstaff and G.K. Belz
80 Female Stranger
Male Stranger
70
Accuracy (percent correct)
60
50
40
30
20
General Stranger Around Stranger
Queson Focus
Fig. 2. Mean accuracy for participants in the female stranger compared to the
male stranger condition for each question focus. Vertical lines represent one
standard error of the mean.
slight decrease for surroundings related questions (37.7%, se = 2.8 to
33.5%, se = 2.1) and a large increase for stranger related questions
(39.8%, se = 3.0 to 69.4%, se = 3.0). There were no significant in-
teractions for Time X Stranger F(1,111) = 0.277, P = .600,
ηp2 = 0.002, Time X Witness F(1,111) = 0.110, P = .741,
ηp2 = 0.001, Time X Stranger X Witness F(1,111) = 0.200, P = .656,
ηp2 = 0.002, Question-Focus X Stranger X Witness F(2,222) = 0.687,
P = .504, ηp2 = 0.006, Time X Question-Focus X Stranger F
(2,222) = 2.464, P = .087, ηp2 = 0.022, Time X Question-Focus X
Witness F(2,222) = 0.835, P = .435, ηp2 = 0.007 or Time X Question-
Focus X Stranger X Witness F(2,222) = 0.433, P = .649, ηp2 = 0.004.
3.2. Sex of stranger
The sex of the stranger was rated on a scale from 1 (definitely male)
to 6 (definitely female). The analysis revealed a significant effect for
Stranger F(1,102) = 651.987, P < .0005, ηp2 = 0.865, with male
strangers being rated more male (1.38, se = 0.08) and female strangers
rated as more female (4.57, se = 0.10), and a significant effect for Time
F(1,102) = 65.115, P < .0005, ηp2 = 0.390, with the strangers rated
as more male when first encountered (2.52, se = 0.112) compared to
after being observed for longer (3.42, se = 0.04). There was a sig-
nificant Time X Stranger interaction F(1,102) = 212.135, P < .0005,
ηp2 = 0.675, with the male stranger rated as slightly more male after
being observed (1.01, se = 0.05) compared to when first encountered
(1.7, se = 0.14, possibly a floor effect), but with female strangers rated
as much more female after being observed (5.8, se = 0.06) compared to
when they were first encountered (3.3, se = 0.18).
There was no significant effect for Witness F(1,102) = 0.850,
P = .359, ηp2 = 0.008, or the Witness X Time interaction F
(1,102) = 0.031, P = .862, ηp2 < 0.0005 but there was a significant
Witness X Stranger interaction F(1,102) = 8.511, P = .004,
ηp2 = 0.077 with female participants rating the male stranger as more
male (1.3, se = 0.10) compared to ratings of the male participants (1.5,
se = 0.12), and the female strangers as more female (4.8, se = 0.1)
compared to the ratings of the male participants (4.3, se = 0.169).
There was a significant Witness X Stranger X Time interaction F
(1,102) = 7.146, P = .009, ηp2 = 0.065. In the male stranger condi-
tion, female participants rated the stranger as more definitely male
when they are first encountered, with both male and female partici-
pants rating the stranger as definitely male after they had been ob-
served (Fig. 3). However, in the female stranger condition, male
4
Personality and Individual Differences 164 (2020) 110093
6
Female Parcipant
(1=Definitely male, 6=Definitely female)
Male Parcipant
Rang of the sex of the stranger
5
4
3
2
1
Up to first Aer observing Up to first Aer observing
encountering stranger for encountering stranger for
stranger longer stranger longer
Male Stranger Female Stranger
Fig. 3. Mean rating of the sex of the stranger for male and female participants
in the male and female stranger conditions. Vertical lines represent one stan-
dard error of the mean.
participants rated them as possibly male whereas female participants
rated them between possibly male and possibly female, with both male
and female participants rating the female stranger as close to definitely
female after being observed.
3.3. Anxiety
The participants rated their anxiety level when they first noticed the
stranger, and later after they had observed the stranger, on a scale of 1
(completely relaxed) to 7 (very anxious). The analysis revealed a sig-
nificant effect for Witness F(1, 98) = 4.242, P = .042, ηp2 = 0.041,
with female participants reporting they felt more anxious (2.81,
se = 0.16) compared to male witnesses (2.23, se = 0.23), and a sig-
nificant effect of Time F(1, 98) = 39.656, P < .0005, ηp2 = 0.288,
with participants reporting they were less anxious after observing the
stranger (1.96, se = 0.15) compared to when they first encountered
them (3.08, se = 0.19).
There was no significant effect of Stranger F(1, 98) = 0.154,
P = .695, ηp2 = 0.002, and no significant interactions for Stranger X
Witness F(1, 98) = 0.054, P = .817, ηp2 = 0.001, Time X Stranger F(1,
98) = 0.989, P = .323, ηp2 = 0.010 or Time X Witness F(1,
98) = 0.439, P = .509, ηp2 = 0.004. The Witness X Stranger X Time
interaction approached significance, F(1, 98) =3.323, P = .071,
ηp2 = 0.033. While not significant, Fig. 4 indicates a tendency for fe-
males to remain anxious for both male and female strangers while
males were much less anxious after observing the female stranger.
3.4. Stranger threat
The participants rated how threatened by the stranger they felt on a
scale of 1 (not threatened) to 7 (completely threatened). The analysis re-
vealed significant effects for Witness F(1, 100) = 4.455, P = .037,
ηp2 = 0.043 and Time F(1, 100) = 46.767, P < .0005, ηp2 = 0.319.
Female participants felt more threatened than males, and participants
generally felt less threatened after observing the stranger for longer
(Fig. 5).
There was no significant effect of Stranger F(1, 100) = 0.260,
P = .611, ηp2 = 0.003, and no significant interactions for Stranger X
Witness F(1,100) = 0.618, P = .434, ηp2 = 0.006, Time X Stranger F
(1, 100) = 0.555, P = .458, ηp2 = 0.006, Time X Witness F(1,
100) = 2.164, P = .144, ηp2 = 0.021 or Witness X Stranger X Time F
(1,100) = 0.004, P = .952, ηp2 < 0.0005. Participants were also
M.G. Longstaff and G.K. Belz Personality and Individual Differences 164 (2020) 110093

7 on the stranger, leading to better memory for related details and a

Female Parcipant
detrimental effect on memory for other details. This was particularly
Male Parcipant the case for females, consistent with the findings of Areh (2011), per-
(1=Completely relaxed, 7=Very anxious)

6
haps because they maintain their attention on the stranger relatively
longer than the males do out of caution (to further assess potential risk)
5 and because processing information about people (e.g. faces) is an
Axiety Level

evolved adaptation for females (Hampson et al., 2006).

4 We also investigated sex differences in perceptions of the sex of the
stranger. Despite ambiguity, male strangers were rated as being rela-
3
tively more male and females more female. However, there was an
overall bias towards perceiving the stranger as male, particularly when
first encountered. The male stranger was identified as male both when
2
first encountered and after being observed for a while, whereas the
female stranger was not strongly identified as male or female when first
1 encountered (tending to being male) but identified as female after being
Up to first Aer observing Up to first Aer observing observed. This is consistent with a male bias in sex identification and
encountering stranger for encountering stranger for
could provide a functional evolutionary benefit. There is value in both
stranger longer stranger longer
being cautions in case the ambiguously dressed stranger is male who
Male Stranger Female Stranger
might pose a greater threat, as well as accurately identifying the sex of
the stranger when the sex cues are clear (Johnson et al., 2012; Maner &
Fig. 4. Mean anxiety rating for male and female participants in the male and Miller, 2013). While this was similar for male and female participants,
female stranger conditions up to first encountering the stranger and after ob- females were better at identifying the sex of the stranger when first
serving them for longer. Vertical lines represent one standard error of the mean. encountered. Similar to the memory findings, this is consistent with the
argument that females focussed more on the stranger.
To investigate potential causes of females increasing attending to
7 Female Parcipant and remembering details of the stranger, we included questions about
Male Parcipant participants' feelings and perceptions. This revealed that females were
(1= Not threatened, 7=Completely threatened
Rang of how threatened the parcipant felt

6 generally more anxious than males, and both were less anxious after
they had observed the stranger for longer. There was a tendency for
females to remain more anxious for both male and female strangers
5
while the anxiety level for male participants dropped further after ob-
serving the female stranger. If the females found the situation more
4 anxiety-inducing, perhaps they focussed more on the stranger because
they were concerned about their potential actions (pragmatic fear of
crime or evolved adaptation). A possible cause of this anxiety was that
3 females felt more threatened by the stranger than the males irrespective
of the sex of the stranger or when they were asked.
2 A clear and consistent pattern emerges when considering these re-
sults as a whole. Females have better memory for the stranger and are
better at identifying their sex. This is accompanied by greater anxiety
1 (which tends to persist) and perceptions of the stranger as threatening
Up to first encountering stranger Aer observing stranger for (plus unfriendly, dominant). We argue that this led female participants
longer
to particularly focus on the stranger, thus resulting in better memory for
the stranger. This also occurred for the male participants, but the effect
Fig. 5. Mean rating of how threatened male and female participants felt up to
was stronger for females. This increased focus on the stranger appeared
first encountering the stranger and after observing them for longer. Vertical
to have a detrimental effect on memory for details surrounding the
lines represent one standard error of the mean.
stranger, particularly for female participants. It appears there is a trade-
off between attending to and remembering details about the stranger
asked about perceptions of stranger dominance and friendliness with and details surrounding the stranger, consistent with the weapon focus
results consistent with the above (see supplementary materials). effect (Fawcett et al., 2016).
The question remains as to the relative importance of biological/
4. Discussion evolutionary factors compared to psychological/social factors. Previous
research has demonstrated sex differences in performance on a range of
This study examined sex differences in witness memory in a context memory tasks and related brain activity (Persson et al., 2013) that can
that could be perceived as neutral/unthreatening or threatening. We be interpreted from a biological and evolutionary perspective (e.g.
predicted that females would perceive the situation as more threatening Cosmides & Tooby, 2013; Postma et al., 2004). While it may be that
and anxiety-inducing and this would be accompanied by better recall there are biological differences in memory processes, the evolution of a
for details related to a stranger. The results confirmed this. While there wariness of strangers and associated increases in anxiety and atten-
were no sex differences for total accuracy or general questions, females tional focus can explain the current results. Any innate tendency such as
were much more accurate than males for stranger-related questions and this would be acted on as we develop and interact in a social context
slightly less accurate than males for surroundings-related questions. such that females would be more vigilant, fearful and anxious in po-
This persisted over time and despite the sex of the stranger. Participants tentially dangerous environments where the stranger was perceived as
were more accurate overall for questions asked after the stranger had threatening and male. There would also be an evolutionary advantage
been observed for longer compared to when first encountered, and for to initially perceiving the stranger as male and threatening until this
stranger related questions (especially female strangers) compared to the perception could be re-evaluated with more information. The bias for
other details. The results suggest that witnesses focused their attention females to feel anxious and perceive a situation as threatening, even

5
M.G. Longstaff and G.K. Belz
when the context is neutral and not overtly dangerous, is also consistent
with Fear of Crime research (Chadee et al., 2017).
In an applied context, these findings have implications for the
criminal justice system. Both the sex of the stranger and witness can
affect memory. Female witnesses may be more likely to perceive neu-
tral/ambiguous situations as threating and anxiety-inducing and
therefore more likely to focus on details of the people involved. This
would be particularly consequential if a perpetrator needed to be
identified. The bias towards perceiving the stranger as male when
viewed briefly suggests we should also apply caution regarding the sex
of the perpetrator under these circumstances.
In conclusion, it appears that females have better memory than
males for strangers encountered in a neutral but potentially threatening
context, with a trade-off for worse memory for surrounding details.
While the underlying foundation is likely to be a combination of evo-
lutionary/biological causes moderated by learning and social interac-
tions, immediate factors appear to include perceptions of threat and the
stranger as male, accompanied by feelings of anxiety prompted by the
situation and event.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Mitchell G. Longstaff:Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal
analysis, Investigation, Data curation, Writing - original draft,
Writing - review & editing, Visualization, Supervision, Project
administration.Geoffrey K. Belz:Conceptualization, Methodology,
Formal analysis, Investigation, Data curation, Writing - original
draft, Project administration.
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110093.
References
Andersen, S. M., Carlson, C. A., Carlson, M. A., & Gronlund, S. D. (2014). Individual
differences predict eyewitness identification performance. Personality and Individual
Differences, 60, 36–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.12.011.
Areh, I. (2011). Gender-related differences in eyewitness testimony. Personality and
Individual Differences, 50(5), 559–563. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.11.027.
Barkow, J. H., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (1992). The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology
and the generation of culture. New York: Oxford University Press.
Brewer, N., Weber, N., & Guerin, N. (2020). Police lineups of the future? American
Psychologist, 75(1), 76–91. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000465.supp.
Chadee, D., Ali, S., Burke, A., & Young, J. (2017). Fear of crime and community concerns:
Mediating effect of risk and pragmatic fear. Journal of Community and Applied Social
Psychology, 27, 450–462. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.2326.
Clifford, B. R., & Hollin, C. R. (1981). Effects of the type of incident and the number of
perpetrators on eyewitness memory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66(3), 364–370.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.66.3.364.
Coolidge, F. L., & Wynn, T. (2005). Working memory, its executive functions, and the
emergence of modern thinking. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 15(1), 5–26.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774305000016.
Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (2013). Evolutionary psychology: New perspectives on cogni-
tion and motivation. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 201–229. https://doi.org/10.
1146/annurev.psych.121208.131628.
Cunningham, J. L., & Bringmann, W. G. (1986). A re-examination of William Stern’s
classic eyewitness research. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 63, 565–566.
Fawcett, J. M., Peace, K. A., & Greve, A. (2016). Looking down the barrel of a gun: What
do we know about the weapon focus effect? Journal of Applied Research in Memory and
Cognition, 5, 257–263.
Fetchenhauer, D., & Buunk, A. B. (2005). How to explain gender differences in fear of
crime: Towards an evolutionary approach. Sexualities, Evolution and Gender, 7(2),
95–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207170500111044.
Frenda, S. J., Nichols, R. M., & Loftus, E. F. (2011). Current issues and advances in
misinformation research. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(1), 20–23.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721410396620.
Personality and Individual Differences 164 (2020) 110093
Hampson, E., van Anders, S. M., & Mullin, L. I. (2006). A female advantage in the re-
cognition of emotional facial expressions: Test of an evolutionary hypothesis.
Evolution and Human Behavior, 27(6), 401–416.
Heisz, J. J., Pottruff, M. M., & Shore, D. I. (2013). Females scan more than males: A
potential mechanism for sex differences in recognition memory. Psychological Science,
24(7), 1157–1163. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612468281.
Houston, K. A., Hope, L., Memon, A., & Read, J. D. (2013). Expert testimony on eye-
witness evidence: In search of common sense. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 31(5),
637–651. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2080.
Jenkins, F., & Davies, G. (1985). Contamination of facial memory through exposure to
misleading composite pictures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70(1), 164–176.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.70.1.164.
Johnson, K. L., Iida, M., & Tassinary, L. G. (2012). Person (mis)perception: Functionally
biased sex categorization of bodies. Proceedings. Biological sciences, 279(1749),
4982–4989. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2012.2060.
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.
Loftus, E. F., Levidow, B., & Duensing, S. (1992). Who remembers best? Individual dif-
ferences in memory for events that occurred in a science museum. Applied Cognitive
Psychology, 6, 93–107.
Loftus, E. F., & Palmer, J. C. (1974). Reconstruction of automobile destruction: An ex-
ample of the interaction between language and memory. Journal of Verbal Learning
and Verbal Behavior, 13(5), 585–589.
Maner, J. K., & Miller, S. L. (2013). Adaptive attentional attunement: Perceptions of
danger and attention to outgroup men. Social Cognition, 31(6), 733–744. https://doi.
org/10.1521/soco.2013.31.6.733.
Mast, M. S., & Hall, J. A. (2006). Women’s advantage at remembering others’ appearance:
A systematic look at the why and when of a gender difference. Personality & Social
Psychology Bulletin, 32(3), 353–364. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167205282150.
McGivern, R. F., Mutter, K. L., Anderson, J., Wideman, G., Bodnar, M., & Huston, P. J.
(1998). Gender differences in incidental learning and visual recognition memory:
Support for a sex difference in unconscious environmental awareness. Personality and
Individual Differences, 25(2), 223–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(98)
00017-8.
Mizuno, K., & Giese, K. P. (2010). Towards a molecular understanding of sex differences
in memory formation. Trends in Neurosciences, 33(6), 285–291. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.tins.2010.03.001.
Münsterberg, H. (1908). On the witness stand. McClure: New York.
Nairne, J. S., VanArsdall, J. E., Pandeirada, J. N. S., & Blunt, J. R. (2012). Adaptive
memory: Enhanced location memory after survival processing. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38(2), 495–501. https://
doi.org/10.1037/a0025728.
Pauls, F., Petermann, F., & Lepach, A. C. (2013). Gender differences in episodic memory
and visual working memory including the effects of age. Memory, 21(7), 857–874.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2013.765892.
Persson, J., Herlitz, A., Engman, J., Morell, A., Sjölie, D., Wikström, J., & Söderlund, H.
(2013). Remembering our origin: Gender differences in spatial memory are reflected
in gender differences in hippocampal lateralization. Behavioural Brain Research, 256,
219–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2013.07.050.
Postma, A., Jager, G., Kessels, R. P. C., Koppeschaar, H. P. F., & van Honk, J. (2004). Sex
differences for selective forms of spatial memory. Brain and Cognition, 54(1), 24–34.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0278-2626(03)00238-0.
Powers, P. A., Andriks, J. L., & Loftus, E. F. (1979). Eyewitness accounts of females and
males. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64(3), 339–347. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-
9010.64.3.339.
Rehnman, J., & Herlitz, A. (2007). Women remember more faces than men do. Acta
Psycholigica, 124(3), 344–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2006.04.004.
Shapiro, L. R., & Brooks, E. (2018). Effects of cognitive schemas on children’s testimony
for a simulated juvenile crime. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 57, 1–15.
doi-org.ezproxy.scu.edu.au/10.1016/j.appdev.2018.05.002.
Shaw, J. I., & Skolnick, P. (1999). Weapon focus and gender differences in eyewitness
accuracy: Arousal versus salience. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29(11),
2328–2341.
Stoet, G. (2011). Sex differences in search and gathering skills. Evolution and Human
Behavior, 32(6), 416–422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2011.03.001.
van Eijk, G. (2017). Between risk and resistance: Gender socialization, equality, and
ambiguous norms in fear of crime and safekeeping. Feminist Criminology, 12,
103–124. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085115605905.
Wells, G. L., & Olson, E. A. (2003). Eyewitness testimony. Annual Review of Psychology,
54(1), 277–295. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145028.
Werner, N. S., Kühnel, S., & Markowitsch, H. J. (2013). The neuroscience of face pro-
cessing and identification in eyewitnesses and offenders. Frontiers in Behavioural
Neuroscience, 7, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2013.00189.
Wright, D. B., Loftus, E. F., & Hall, M. (2001). Now you see it; now you don't: Inhibiting
recall and recognition of scenes. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 15(5), 471–482.
https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.719.
Wright, D. B., & Sladden, B. (2003). An own gender bias and the importance of hair in
face recognition. Acta Psychologica, 114(1), 101–114.