Fact finding is an important part of the job of criminal trial judges and juries. In the literature, several potential pitfalls hindering fact finding have been identified, such as context effects (i.e. an unintended effect of non-probative information on conviction) and confirmation bias (i.e. a skewed selection of and overreliance on guilt-confirming evidence and neglect of exonerating information). In the present study, the effect of irrelevant contextual information on conviction and subsequent confirmation bias was tested.
Method
A sample of Dutch professional criminal trial judges (N = 105) studied a case file and decided on their conviction of the suspect’s guilt, and subsequent investigation endeavours. There were two versions of the file, differing in non-probative details that might affect conviction, such as crime severity and facial appearance of the suspect.
Results
Findings suggest that context information indeed affected conviction, and the subsequent preference for guilt-confirming investigation endeavours.
Conclusion
Professional judges may be susceptible to bias threatening the objectivity of legal decision-making.
{"title":"Context effect and confirmation bias in criminal fact finding","authors":"Eric Rassin","doi":"10.1111/lcrp.12172","DOIUrl":"10.1111/lcrp.12172","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Purpose</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Fact finding is an important part of the job of criminal trial judges and juries. In the literature, several potential pitfalls hindering fact finding have been identified, such as context effects (i.e. an unintended effect of non-probative information on conviction) and confirmation bias (i.e. a skewed selection of and overreliance on guilt-confirming evidence and neglect of exonerating information). In the present study, the effect of irrelevant contextual information on conviction and subsequent confirmation bias was tested.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Method</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>A sample of Dutch professional criminal trial judges (<i>N</i> = 105) studied a case file and decided on their conviction of the suspect’s guilt, and subsequent investigation endeavours. There were two versions of the file, differing in non-probative details that might affect conviction, such as crime severity and facial appearance of the suspect.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Findings suggest that context information indeed affected conviction, and the subsequent preference for guilt-confirming investigation endeavours.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Professional judges may be susceptible to bias threatening the objectivity of legal decision-making.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":18022,"journal":{"name":"Legal and Criminological Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2020-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/lcrp.12172","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42699234","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Haneen Deeb, Aldert Vrij, Sharon Leal, Brianna L. Verigin, Steven M. Kleinman
Purpose
Lie-tellers tend to tell embedded lies within interviews. In the context of intelligence-gathering interviews, human sources may disclose information about multiple events, some of which may be false. In two studies, we examined when lie-tellers from low- and high-context cultures start reporting false events in interviews and to what extent they provide a similar amount of detail for the false and truthful events. Study 1 focused on lie-tellers' intentions, and Study 2 focused on their actual responses.
Methods
Participants were asked to think of one false event and three truthful events. Study 1 (N = 100) was an online study in which participants responded to a questionnaire about where they would position the false event when interviewed and they rated the amount of detail they would provide for the events. Study 2 (N = 126) was an experimental study that involved interviewing participants about the events.
Results
Although there was no clear preference for lie position, participants seemed to report the false event at the end rather than at the beginning of the interview. Also, participants provided a similar amount of detail across events. Results on intentions (Study 1) partially overlapped with results on actual responses (Study 2). No differences emerged between low- and high-context cultures.
Conclusions
This research is a first step towards understanding verbal cues that assist investigative practitioners in saving their cognitive and time resources when detecting deception regardless of interviewees' cultural background. More research on similar cues is encouraged.
{"title":"When and how are lies told? And the role of culture and intentions in intelligence-gathering interviews","authors":"Haneen Deeb, Aldert Vrij, Sharon Leal, Brianna L. Verigin, Steven M. Kleinman","doi":"10.1111/lcrp.12171","DOIUrl":"10.1111/lcrp.12171","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Purpose</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Lie-tellers tend to tell embedded lies within interviews. In the context of intelligence-gathering interviews, human sources may disclose information about multiple events, some of which may be false. In two studies, we examined when lie-tellers from low- and high-context cultures start reporting false events in interviews and to what extent they provide a similar amount of detail for the false and truthful events. Study 1 focused on lie-tellers' intentions, and Study 2 focused on their actual responses.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Participants were asked to think of one false event and three truthful events. Study 1 (<i>N</i> = 100) was an online study in which participants responded to a questionnaire about where they would position the false event when interviewed and they rated the amount of detail they would provide for the events. Study 2 (<i>N</i> = 126) was an experimental study that involved interviewing participants about the events.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Although there was no clear preference for lie position, participants seemed to report the false event at the end rather than at the beginning of the interview. Also, participants provided a similar amount of detail across events. Results on intentions (Study 1) partially overlapped with results on actual responses (Study 2). No differences emerged between low- and high-context cultures.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This research is a first step towards understanding verbal cues that assist investigative practitioners in saving their cognitive and time resources when detecting deception regardless of interviewees' cultural background. More research on similar cues is encouraged.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":18022,"journal":{"name":"Legal and Criminological Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2020-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/lcrp.12171","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41954055","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This study examined the characteristics of men in prison who have a history of both self-harm and violence (known as dual harm) and the extent to which demographic and criminogenic factors, in-prison incidents, and self-harm method could differentiate men who dual harm.
Methods
Official prison sample data were examined for the period April 2010 to November 2017 (n = 965). Regression analysis of all custodial incidents, demographic and offending information, and imprisonment experience, was undertaken.
Results
Self-harm was associated with violence in prison, representing a 3.5-fold risk of violence compared with men who did not self-harm, after controlling for time in prison, age, and index offence. 60% of men who harmed themselves also engaged in custodial violence, while 32% who were violent also had a self-harm event. After controlling for age at first incident, 11% of the sample had custodial history of dual harm and they accounted for 56% of all recorded custodial incidents. They had a high probability of property damage and fire setting in prison and spent 40% longer in custody. Men who dual harmed used a greater variety of self-harm methods, with increased use of lethal methods.
Conclusion
Dual harm is prevalent, particularly among those who harm themselves in prison. Men who dual harm contribute excessively to the overall incident burden in prison and demonstrate behavioural variability and risk regarding both violence and self-harm. The findings challenge the usual distinctive management responses or that self-harm or violence is solely the responsibility of health or justice, with greater integration required.
{"title":"Coexisting violence and self-harm: Dual harm in an early-stage male prison population","authors":"Karen Slade, Andrew Forrester, Thom Baguley","doi":"10.1111/lcrp.12169","DOIUrl":"10.1111/lcrp.12169","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Purpose</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This study examined the characteristics of men in prison who have a history of both self-harm and violence (known as <i>dual harm</i>) and the extent to which demographic and criminogenic factors, in-prison incidents, and self-harm method could differentiate men who dual harm.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Official prison sample data were examined for the period April 2010 to November 2017 (<i>n</i> = 965). Regression analysis of all custodial incidents, demographic and offending information, and imprisonment experience, was undertaken.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Self-harm was associated with violence in prison, representing a 3.5-fold risk of violence compared with men who did not self-harm, after controlling for time in prison, age, and index offence. 60% of men who harmed themselves also engaged in custodial violence, while 32% who were violent also had a self-harm event. After controlling for age at first incident, 11% of the sample had custodial history of dual harm and they accounted for 56% of all recorded custodial incidents. They had a high probability of property damage and fire setting in prison and spent 40% longer in custody. Men who dual harmed used a greater variety of self-harm methods, with increased use of lethal methods.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Dual harm is prevalent, particularly among those who harm themselves in prison. Men who dual harm contribute excessively to the overall incident burden in prison and demonstrate behavioural variability and risk regarding both violence and self-harm. The findings challenge the usual distinctive management responses or that self-harm or violence is solely the responsibility of health or justice, with greater integration required.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":18022,"journal":{"name":"Legal and Criminological Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2020-04-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/lcrp.12169","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49406391","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Jean-Louis van Gelder, Margit Averdijk, Denis Ribeaud, Manuel Eisner
Purpose
We question the commonly assumed view of a fixed causal ordering between self-control, delinquency, and sanctions and test the hypothesis that experiencing sanctions may reduce levels of self-control, thereby increasing the risk of future delinquent behaviour. As a subsidiary goal, we argue for a parsimonious view of self-control that is limited to its key components, risk-taking, and impulsivity.
Methods
We use three waves of data from the Zurich Project on the Social Development from Childhood into Adulthood (z-proso), an ongoing prospective longitudinal study of Swiss urban youth (N = 1,197), and include police contacts and school sanctions as predictors of delinquency. We test our hypothesis using path analysis and control for a series of potential confounders, including prior levels of self-control and earlier delinquency.
Results
In line with our hypothesis, the results indicate that sanctioning reduces levels of self-control, net of prior levels of self-control, and earlier delinquency and that self-control mediates the relation between sanctioning and subsequent delinquency.
Conclusions
We conclude that the relation between self-control and crime may be bi- rather than unidirectional with sanctions reducing levels of self-control, which in turn contributes to criminal behaviour. Implications for theory are discussed.
{"title":"Sanctions, short-term mindsets, and delinquency: Reverse causality in a sample of high school youth","authors":"Jean-Louis van Gelder, Margit Averdijk, Denis Ribeaud, Manuel Eisner","doi":"10.1111/lcrp.12170","DOIUrl":"10.1111/lcrp.12170","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Purpose</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We question the commonly assumed view of a fixed causal ordering between self-control, delinquency, and sanctions and test the hypothesis that experiencing sanctions may reduce levels of self-control, thereby increasing the risk of future delinquent behaviour. As a subsidiary goal, we argue for a parsimonious view of self-control that is limited to its key components, risk-taking, and impulsivity.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We use three waves of data from the Zurich Project on the Social Development from Childhood into Adulthood (z-proso), an ongoing prospective longitudinal study of Swiss urban youth (<i>N</i> = 1,197), and include police contacts and school sanctions as predictors of delinquency. We test our hypothesis using path analysis and control for a series of potential confounders, including prior levels of self-control and earlier delinquency.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>In line with our hypothesis, the results indicate that sanctioning reduces levels of self-control, net of prior levels of self-control, and earlier delinquency and that self-control mediates the relation between sanctioning and subsequent delinquency.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We conclude that the relation between self-control and crime may be bi- rather than unidirectional with sanctions reducing levels of self-control, which in turn contributes to criminal behaviour. Implications for theory are discussed.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":18022,"journal":{"name":"Legal and Criminological Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2020-04-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/lcrp.12170","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44332763","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Most stalking studies have been conducted on Western samples. Little is known about victims of stalking and harassment outside the Western Hemisphere generally, and victim coping approaches have so far gone unexamined within populations of Asian victims.
Methods
Using a sample of 198 self-reported victims of stalking or harassment drawn from a large sample of university students (N = 2,496) aged between 18 and 40, this study explores the incidence of these phenomena and the gendered distribution of different coping methods (i.e., avoidant, proactive, passive, compliance, and aggressive).
Results
A total of 7.9% of respondents reported experience of stalking or harassment in their lifetime, and the incidence of various stalking behaviours is reported. In general, passive (or moving away) and avoidant (or moving inward) approaches were the most frequently reported victim coping approaches, while compliance (or moving towards or with) was the least employed coping strategy. Males were considerably more likely than females to employ compliance and aggressive coping strategies. Multivariate analyses indicate that females were less likely to adopt a proactive coping approach, while all victims were more likely to employ the aggressive, proactive, and compliance approaches if they had been targeted for more than a month.
Conclusions
These findings show that experiences of stalking or harassment were not uncommon among the sample and that the type of victim coping approach was in part influenced by victim demographics and by stalking dynamics.
{"title":"Coping with stalking and harassment victimization: Exploring the coping approaches of young male and female adults in Hong Kong","authors":"Heng Choon (Oliver) Chan, Lorraine Sheridan","doi":"10.1111/lcrp.12168","DOIUrl":"10.1111/lcrp.12168","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Purpose</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Most stalking studies have been conducted on Western samples. Little is known about victims of stalking and harassment outside the Western Hemisphere generally, and victim coping approaches have so far gone unexamined within populations of Asian victims.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Using a sample of 198 self-reported victims of stalking or harassment drawn from a large sample of university students (<i>N</i> = 2,496) aged between 18 and 40, this study explores the incidence of these phenomena and the gendered distribution of different coping methods (i.e., avoidant, proactive, passive, compliance, and aggressive).</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>A total of 7.9% of respondents reported experience of stalking or harassment in their lifetime, and the incidence of various stalking behaviours is reported. In general, passive (or moving away) and avoidant (or moving inward) approaches were the most frequently reported victim coping approaches, while compliance (or moving towards or with) was the least employed coping strategy. Males were considerably more likely than females to employ compliance and aggressive coping strategies. Multivariate analyses indicate that females were less likely to adopt a proactive coping approach, while all victims were more likely to employ the aggressive, proactive, and compliance approaches if they had been targeted for more than a month.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>These findings show that experiences of stalking or harassment were not uncommon among the sample and that the type of victim coping approach was in part influenced by victim demographics and by stalking dynamics.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":18022,"journal":{"name":"Legal and Criminological Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2020-02-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/lcrp.12168","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44526553","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Bayes factors provide a continuous measure of evidence for one hypothesis (e.g., the null, H0) relative to another (e.g., the alternative, H1). Warmelink, Subramanian, Tkacheva and McLatchie (2019) reported Bayes factors alongside p-values to draw inferences about whether the order of expected versus unexpected questions influenced the amount of details interviewees provided during an interview. Mac Giolla & Ly (2019) provided several recommendations to improve the reporting of Bayesian analyses, and used Warmelink et al (2019) as a concrete example. These included (I) not to over-rely on cut-offs when interpreting Bayes factors; (II) to rely less on Bayes factors, and switch to “nominal support”; and (III) to report the posterior distribution. This paper elaborates on their recommendations and provides two further suggestions for improvement. First, we recommend deception researchers report Robustness Regions to demonstrate the sensitivity of their conclusions. Second, we encourage deception researchers to estimate a priori the sample size likely to be required to produce conclusive results.
{"title":"Reply to Mac Giolla and Ly (2019): On the reporting of Bayes factors in deception research","authors":"N. McLatchie, L. Warmelink, Daria Tkacheva","doi":"10.31234/osf.io/kwy3q","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/kwy3q","url":null,"abstract":"Bayes factors provide a continuous measure of evidence for one hypothesis (e.g., the null, H0) relative to another (e.g., the alternative, H1). Warmelink, Subramanian, Tkacheva and McLatchie (2019) reported Bayes factors alongside p-values to draw inferences about whether the order of expected versus unexpected questions influenced the amount of details interviewees provided during an interview. Mac Giolla & Ly (2019) provided several recommendations to improve the reporting of Bayesian analyses, and used Warmelink et al (2019) as a concrete example. These included (I) not to over-rely on cut-offs when interpreting Bayes factors; (II) to rely less on Bayes factors, and switch to “nominal support”; and (III) to report the posterior distribution. This paper elaborates on their recommendations and provides two further suggestions for improvement. First, we recommend deception researchers report Robustness Regions to demonstrate the sensitivity of their conclusions. Second, we encourage deception researchers to estimate a priori the sample size likely to be required to produce conclusive results.","PeriodicalId":18022,"journal":{"name":"Legal and Criminological Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2020-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45794993","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Alejandra De La Fuente Vilar, Robert Horselenberg, Leif A. Strömwall, Sara Landström, Lorraine Hope, Peter J. van Koppen
Purpose
Forensic interviewers often face witnesses who are unwilling to cooperate with the investigation. In this experimental study, we examined the extent to which cooperativeness instructions affect information disclosure in a witness investigative interview.
Methods
One hundred and thirty-six participants watched a recorded mock-crime and were interviewed twice as mock-witnesses. They were randomly assigned to one of four conditions instructing different levels of cooperativeness: Control (no instructions), Cooperation, No Cooperation, and No Cooperation plus Cooperation. The cooperativeness instructions aimed to influence how participants’ perceived the costs and benefits of cooperation. We predicted that Cooperation and No Cooperation instructions would increase and decrease information disclosure and accuracy, respectively.
Results
We found decreased information disclosure and, to a lesser extent, accuracy in the No Cooperation and No Cooperation plus Cooperation conditions. In a second interview, the shift of instructions from No Cooperation to Cooperation led to a limited increase of information disclosure at no cost of accuracy. Cooperativeness instructions partially influenced the communication strategies participants used to disclose or withhold information.
Conclusions
Our results demonstrate the detrimental effects of uncooperativeness on information disclosure and, to a lesser extent, the accuracy of witness statements. We discuss the implications of a lack of witness cooperation and the importance of gaining witness cooperation to facilitate information disclosure in investigative interviews.
{"title":"Effects of cooperation on information disclosure in mock-witness interviews","authors":"Alejandra De La Fuente Vilar, Robert Horselenberg, Leif A. Strömwall, Sara Landström, Lorraine Hope, Peter J. van Koppen","doi":"10.1111/lcrp.12167","DOIUrl":"10.1111/lcrp.12167","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Purpose</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Forensic interviewers often face witnesses who are unwilling to cooperate with the investigation. In this experimental study, we examined the extent to which cooperativeness instructions affect information disclosure in a witness investigative interview.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>One hundred and thirty-six participants watched a recorded mock-crime and were interviewed twice as mock-witnesses. They were randomly assigned to one of four conditions instructing different levels of cooperativeness: Control (no instructions), Cooperation, No Cooperation, and No Cooperation plus Cooperation. The cooperativeness instructions aimed to influence how participants’ perceived the costs and benefits of cooperation. We predicted that Cooperation and No Cooperation instructions would increase and decrease information disclosure and accuracy, respectively.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We found decreased information disclosure and, to a lesser extent, accuracy in the No Cooperation and No Cooperation plus Cooperation conditions. In a second interview, the shift of instructions from No Cooperation to Cooperation led to a limited increase of information disclosure at no cost of accuracy. Cooperativeness instructions partially influenced the communication strategies participants used to disclose or withhold information.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Our results demonstrate the detrimental effects of uncooperativeness on information disclosure and, to a lesser extent, the accuracy of witness statements. We discuss the implications of a lack of witness cooperation and the importance of gaining witness cooperation to facilitate information disclosure in investigative interviews.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":18022,"journal":{"name":"Legal and Criminological Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2020-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/lcrp.12167","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47450427","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Factfinders in trials struggle to differentiate witnesses who offer genuinely expert opinions from those who do not. The Expert Persuasion Expectancy (ExPEx) framework proposes eight attributes logically relevant to this assessment: foundation, field, specialty, ability, opinion, support, consistency, and trustworthiness. We present two experiments examining the effects of these attributes on the persuasiveness of a forensic gait analysis opinion.
Methods
Jury-eligible participants rated the credibility, value, and weight of an expert report that was either generally strong (Exp. 1; N = 437) or generally weak (Exp. 2; N = 435). The quality of ExPEx attributes varied between participants. Allocation to condition (none, foundation, field, specialty, ability, opinion, support, consistency, trustworthiness) determined which attribute in the report would be weak (cf. strong; Exp. 1), or strong (cf. weak; Exp. 2).
Results
In Experiment 1, the persuasiveness of a strong report was significantly undermined by weak versions of ability, consistency, and trustworthiness. In Experiment 2, a weak report was significantly improved by strong versions of ability and consistency. Unplanned analyses of subjective ratings also identified effects of foundation, field, specialty, and opinion.
Conclusions
We found evidence that ability (i.e., personal proficiency), consistency (i.e., endorsement by other experts), and trustworthiness (i.e., objectivity) attributes influence opinion persuasiveness in logically appropriate ways. Ensuring that factfinders have information about these attributes may improve their assessments of expert opinion evidence.
{"title":"Exploring juror evaluations of expert opinions using the Expert Persuasion Expectancy framework","authors":"Kristy A. Martire, Gary Edmond, Danielle Navarro","doi":"10.1111/lcrp.12165","DOIUrl":"10.1111/lcrp.12165","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Purpose</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Factfinders in trials struggle to differentiate witnesses who offer genuinely expert opinions from those who do not. The Expert Persuasion Expectancy (ExPEx) framework proposes eight attributes logically relevant to this assessment: foundation, field, specialty, ability, opinion, support, consistency, and trustworthiness. We present two experiments examining the effects of these attributes on the persuasiveness of a forensic gait analysis opinion.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Jury-eligible participants rated the credibility, value, and weight of an expert report that was either generally strong (Exp. 1; <i>N</i> = 437) or generally weak (Exp. 2; <i>N</i> = 435). The quality of ExPEx attributes varied between participants. Allocation to condition (none, foundation, field, specialty, ability, opinion, support, consistency, trustworthiness) determined which attribute in the report would be weak (<i>cf.</i> strong; Exp. 1), or strong (<i>cf.</i> weak; Exp. 2).</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>In Experiment 1, the persuasiveness of a strong report was significantly undermined by weak versions of ability, consistency, and trustworthiness. In Experiment 2, a weak report was significantly improved by strong versions of ability and consistency. Unplanned analyses of subjective ratings also identified effects of foundation, field, specialty, and opinion.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We found evidence that ability (i.e., personal proficiency), consistency (i.e., endorsement by other experts), and trustworthiness (i.e., objectivity) attributes influence opinion persuasiveness in logically appropriate ways. Ensuring that factfinders have information about these attributes may improve their assessments of expert opinion evidence.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":18022,"journal":{"name":"Legal and Criminological Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2020-02-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/lcrp.12165","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44109254","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Renan Benigno Saraiva, Inger van Boeijen, Lorraine Hope, Robert Horselenberg, Melanie Sauerland, Peter J. van Koppen
Purpose
Distinguishing accurate from inaccurate identifications is a challenging issue in the criminal justice system, especially for biased police line-ups. That is because biased line-ups undermine the diagnostic value of accuracy post-dictors such as confidence and decision time. Here, we aimed to test general and eyewitness-specific self-ratings of memory capacity as potential estimators of identification performance that are unaffected by line-up bias.
Methods
Participants (N = 744) completed a metamemory assessment consisting of the Multifactorial Metamemory Questionnaire and the Eyewitness Metamemory Scale and took part in a standard eyewitness paradigm. Following the presentation of a mock-crime video, they viewed either biased or unbiased line-ups.
Results
Self-ratings of discontentment with eyewitness memory ability were indicative of identification accuracy for both biased and unbiased line-ups. Participants who scored low on eyewitness metamemory factors also displayed a stronger confidence–accuracy calibration than those who scored high.
Conclusions
These results suggest a promising role for self-ratings of memory capacity in the evaluation of eyewitness identifications, while also advancing theory on self-assessments for different memory systems.
{"title":"Eyewitness metamemory predicts identification performance in biased and unbiased line-ups","authors":"Renan Benigno Saraiva, Inger van Boeijen, Lorraine Hope, Robert Horselenberg, Melanie Sauerland, Peter J. van Koppen","doi":"10.1111/lcrp.12166","DOIUrl":"10.1111/lcrp.12166","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Purpose</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Distinguishing accurate from inaccurate identifications is a challenging issue in the criminal justice system, especially for biased police line-ups. That is because biased line-ups undermine the diagnostic value of accuracy post-dictors such as confidence and decision time. Here, we aimed to test general and eyewitness-specific self-ratings of memory capacity as potential estimators of identification performance that are unaffected by line-up bias.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Participants (<i>N</i> = 744) completed a metamemory assessment consisting of the Multifactorial Metamemory Questionnaire and the Eyewitness Metamemory Scale and took part in a standard eyewitness paradigm. Following the presentation of a mock-crime video, they viewed either biased or unbiased line-ups.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Self-ratings of discontentment with eyewitness memory ability were indicative of identification accuracy for both biased and unbiased line-ups. Participants who scored low on eyewitness metamemory factors also displayed a stronger confidence–accuracy calibration than those who scored high.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>These results suggest a promising role for self-ratings of memory capacity in the evaluation of eyewitness identifications, while also advancing theory on self-assessments for different memory systems.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":18022,"journal":{"name":"Legal and Criminological Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2020-02-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/lcrp.12166","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48414693","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Call for papers: Special Issue: Direct replications in legal and criminological psychology","authors":"","doi":"10.1111/lcrp.12164","DOIUrl":"10.1111/lcrp.12164","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":18022,"journal":{"name":"Legal and Criminological Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2020-01-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/lcrp.12164","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45753441","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号