The article listed below, intended for publication in the Special Issue ‘Direct Replications in Legal and Criminological Psychology’ was inadvertently published in a regular issue, volume 27, issue 2. This was due to a production error by the publisher and is not attributable to the authors or guest editors. This article should be cited as shown below.
Tonković, M., Denis Vlašiček, D. & Francesca Dumančić, F. (2022). Preregistered direct replication of the linguistic frame effect on perceived blame and financial liability. Legal and Criminal Psychology, 27, 354–369. https://doi.org/10.1111/lcrp.12219
We apologize for this error.
{"title":"Preregistered direct replication of the linguistic frame effect on perceived blame and financial liability","authors":"","doi":"10.1111/lcrp.12244","DOIUrl":"10.1111/lcrp.12244","url":null,"abstract":"<p>The article listed below, intended for publication in the Special Issue ‘Direct Replications in Legal and Criminological Psychology’ was inadvertently published in a regular issue, volume 27, issue 2. This was due to a production error by the publisher and is not attributable to the authors or guest editors. This article should be cited as shown below.</p><p>Tonković, M., Denis Vlašiček, D. & Francesca Dumančić, F. (2022). Preregistered direct replication of the linguistic frame effect on perceived blame and financial liability. <i>Legal and Criminal Psychology</i>, <b>27</b>, 354–369. https://doi.org/10.1111/lcrp.12219</p><p>We apologize for this error.</p>","PeriodicalId":18022,"journal":{"name":"Legal and Criminological Psychology","volume":"30 1","pages":"58"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2023-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/lcrp.12244","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136287018","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}
Sarah L. Deck, Sonja P. Brubacher, Jason J. Dickinson, Martine B. Powell
Purpose
When multiple children are asked about the same event, the consistency of their reports may be used as a heuristic for credibility. Little research has considered how consistent child co-witnesses are likely to be. In this study, we explored how likely child co-witnesses were to report the same details from a mutually experienced event.
Methods
Pairs of children participated in an educational science event during which the target attempted to coax the children into breaking preestablished rules for the session (i.e., commit transgressions). Children were individually interviewed about their experience on two subsequent occasions.
Results
Co-witnesses tended to be quite inconsistent: 32%–55% of all details recalled were only mentioned by one co-witness. Various factors were associated with co-witness consistency, including delay before the interview, centrality of details recalled, and children's age and forthcomingness.
Conclusions
The findings indicate that inconsistency between co-witnesses reflects a natural memory phenomenon, and that practitioners should be cautious of using co-witness consistency as an indicator of credibility.
{"title":"Consistency amongst pairs: How consistent are child co-witnesses with one another?","authors":"Sarah L. Deck, Sonja P. Brubacher, Jason J. Dickinson, Martine B. Powell","doi":"10.1111/lcrp.12243","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/lcrp.12243","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Purpose</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>When multiple children are asked about the same event, the consistency of their reports may be used as a heuristic for credibility. Little research has considered how consistent child co-witnesses are likely to be. In this study, we explored how likely child co-witnesses were to report the same details from a mutually experienced event.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Pairs of children participated in an educational science event during which the target attempted to coax the children into breaking preestablished rules for the session (i.e., commit transgressions). Children were individually interviewed about their experience on two subsequent occasions.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Co-witnesses tended to be quite inconsistent: 32%–55% of all details recalled were only mentioned by one co-witness. Various factors were associated with co-witness consistency, including delay before the interview, centrality of details recalled, and children's age and forthcomingness.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The findings indicate that inconsistency between co-witnesses reflects a natural memory phenomenon, and that practitioners should be cautious of using co-witness consistency as an indicator of credibility.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":18022,"journal":{"name":"Legal and Criminological Psychology","volume":"28 2","pages":"254-265"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2023-05-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/lcrp.12243","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50155910","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}
Loftus (1979, Reactions to blatantly contradictory information) demonstrated that participants who received a piece of blatantly contradictory information were not susceptible to it (the boundary condition effect). In addition, participants who had received the blatant misinformation were also less susceptible to the more subtle pieces of misinformation compared to the participants who did not receive the blatant misinformation (the inoculation effect). Researchers often cited this finding as evidence for the idea that detecting a piece of blatant misinformation is similar to being given a warning. However, to our knowledge, the inoculation effect has not been replicated.
Methods
Experiment 1 was a direct replication. Participants either encountered four pieces of nonblatant misinformation (subtle condition) or the same four pieces of nonblatant misinformation and an additional piece of blatant misinformation (blatant condition). Experiment 2 was a conceptual replication in which we also manipulated the presence or absence of initial testing. Furthermore, we presented the slides as a video and presented four neutral and four misleading details in the narrative.
Results
In two high-powered experiments, we failed to replicate both the inoculation effect and the boundary condition effect. Using a multi-verse analysis approach, we failed to observe a significant advantage from the inclusion of a piece of blatant misinformation in most (but not all) analyses.
Conclusion
We conclude that encountering a piece of blatant misinformation was not sufficient to inoculate witnesses against other nonblatant pieces of misinformation. We further discuss our results in the context of misinformation, warning, and discrepancy detection.
{"title":"Does blatantly contradictory information reduce the misinformation effect? A Registered Report replication of Loftus (1979)","authors":"Rachel O'Donnell, Jason C. K. Chan","doi":"10.1111/lcrp.12242","DOIUrl":"10.1111/lcrp.12242","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Purpose</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Loftus (1979, <i>Reactions to blatantly contradictory information</i>) demonstrated that participants who received a piece of blatantly contradictory information were not susceptible to it (the boundary condition effect). In addition, participants who had received the blatant misinformation were also less susceptible to the more subtle pieces of misinformation compared to the participants who did not receive the blatant misinformation (the inoculation effect). Researchers often cited this finding as evidence for the idea that detecting a piece of blatant misinformation is similar to being given a warning. However, to our knowledge, the inoculation effect has not been replicated.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Experiment 1 was a direct replication. Participants either encountered four pieces of nonblatant misinformation (subtle condition) or the same four pieces of nonblatant misinformation and an additional piece of blatant misinformation (blatant condition). Experiment 2 was a conceptual replication in which we also manipulated the presence or absence of initial testing. Furthermore, we presented the slides as a video and presented four neutral and four misleading details in the narrative.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>In two high-powered experiments, we failed to replicate both the inoculation effect and the boundary condition effect. Using a multi-verse analysis approach, we failed to observe a significant advantage from the inclusion of a piece of blatant misinformation in most (but not all) analyses.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We conclude that encountering a piece of blatant misinformation was not sufficient to inoculate witnesses against other nonblatant pieces of misinformation. We further discuss our results in the context of misinformation, warning, and discrepancy detection.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":18022,"journal":{"name":"Legal and Criminological Psychology","volume":"30 1","pages":"3-26"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2023-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/lcrp.12242","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47618859","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}
Felicity O'Connell, Zarah Vernham, Paul Taylor, Lara Warmelink
Background
Episodic Future Thought (EFT) ability affects how credible individuals appear (O'Connell et al., The effect of individual differences in episodic future thought on the ability to lie about intentions [manuscript submitted for publication], Psychology Department, Lancaster University, 2022). However, it is unclear how individuals with higher EFT ability create this credible demeanour. This paper describes two studies that explored participants' subjective cue use when judging the veracity of verbal statements (Study 1) and written statements (Study 2) provided by individuals with varying EFT ability.
Method
In Study 1, 68 participants judged the veracity and indicated which cues influenced their veracity judgements of six truthful and six deceptive verbal statements. In Study 2, 102 participants judged the veracity and indicated which cues influenced their veracity judgements of 24 truthful or 24 deceptive written statements.
Results
Study 1 and Study 2 showed that the EFT ability of the sender affected subjective cue use. In Study 1, participants were influenced by different subjective cues when judging truthful (vs. deceptive) verbal statements. In Study 2, participants reported being influenced by the same cues in both veracity conditions. Study 1 showed that three cues mediated the relationship between EFT ability and veracity judgements. In Study 2, four cues mediated the EFT ability–veracity judgement relationship in the deceptive condition. There were no mediation effects in the truthful condition.
Conclusion
We propose that EFT ability is an underlying cognitive mechanism involved in creating a credible demeanour which can affect participants' veracity judgements. The current results suggest that the cues present in higher EFT individual's accounts may be contributing to this credibility effect.
情景未来思维(Episodic Future Thought, EFT)能力影响个体的可信度(O'Connell et al.，情景未来思维的个体差异对意图撒谎能力的影响[手稿提交出版]，兰开斯特大学心理学系，2022)。然而，目前尚不清楚具有较高EFT能力的人是如何创造出这种可信的行为的。本文描述了两项研究，探讨了参与者在判断不同EFT能力个体提供的口头陈述(研究1)和书面陈述(研究2)时的主观线索使用情况。方法在研究1中，68名被试对6个真实语句和6个欺骗性语句的准确性进行判断，并指出哪些线索影响了他们的准确性判断。在研究2中，102名参与者判断真实性，并指出哪些线索影响了他们对24个真实或欺骗性书面陈述的真实性判断。结果研究1和研究2表明，发送者的EFT能力影响主观线索的使用。在研究1中，参与者在判断真实(与欺骗)口头陈述时受到不同主观线索的影响。在研究2中，参与者报告在两种准确性条件下受到相同线索的影响。研究1表明，三种线索介导了EFT能力与准确性判断之间的关系。在研究2中，4个线索介导了欺骗条件下的EFT能力-准确性判断关系。在真实条件下不存在中介效应。结论EFT能力是一种潜在的认知机制，参与了可信行为的形成，而可信行为会影响被试的真实性判断。目前的结果表明，出现在较高EFT个人账户中的线索可能有助于这种可信度效应。
{"title":"The effect of episodic future thinking ability on subjective cue use when judging credibility","authors":"Felicity O'Connell, Zarah Vernham, Paul Taylor, Lara Warmelink","doi":"10.1111/lcrp.12241","DOIUrl":"10.1111/lcrp.12241","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Episodic Future Thought (EFT) ability affects how credible individuals appear (O'Connell et al., <i>The effect of individual differences in episodic future thought on the ability to lie about intentions</i> [manuscript submitted for publication], Psychology Department, Lancaster University, 2022). However, it is unclear how individuals with higher EFT ability create this credible demeanour. This paper describes two studies that explored participants' subjective cue use when judging the veracity of verbal statements (Study 1) and written statements (Study 2) provided by individuals with varying EFT ability.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Method</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>In Study 1, 68 participants judged the veracity and indicated which cues influenced their veracity judgements of six truthful and six deceptive verbal statements. In Study 2, 102 participants judged the veracity and indicated which cues influenced their veracity judgements of 24 truthful or 24 deceptive written statements.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Study 1 and Study 2 showed that the EFT ability of the sender affected subjective cue use. In Study 1, participants were influenced by different subjective cues when judging truthful (vs. deceptive) verbal statements. In Study 2, participants reported being influenced by the same cues in both veracity conditions. Study 1 showed that three cues mediated the relationship between EFT ability and veracity judgements. In Study 2, four cues mediated the EFT ability–veracity judgement relationship in the deceptive condition. There were no mediation effects in the truthful condition.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We propose that EFT ability is an underlying cognitive mechanism involved in creating a credible demeanour which can affect participants' veracity judgements. The current results suggest that the cues present in higher EFT individual's accounts may be contributing to this credibility effect.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":18022,"journal":{"name":"Legal and Criminological Psychology","volume":"28 2","pages":"237-253"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2023-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/lcrp.12241","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48789046","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":"Perceptions of intimate partner stalking and cyberstalking: Do perpetrator and victim gender and victims' responses to stalking influence perceptions of criminal behaviour and responsibility?","authors":"Daniel L. Gordon, C. Dardis","doi":"10.1111/lcrp.12240","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/lcrp.12240","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":18022,"journal":{"name":"Legal and Criminological Psychology","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2023-01-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"63383752","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}
While the gender of stalking victims and perpetrators may affect perceptions of stalking, limited research has examined whether victim responses to stalking (i.e. ignoring or confronting the perpetrator) are similarly influential. The present study examined whether perpetrator and victim gender and victim response (ignore vs. asking the perpetrator to stop) were related to perceptions of stalking and cyberstalking.
Methods
Participants (N = 223) from the United States were randomly assigned to one of four vignettes (gender × victim response) that included both in-person stalking and cyberstalking behaviours. Perceptions assessed included: whether police intervention was necessary, whether the scenario constituted a crime, and how responsible the perpetrator and victim were for the situation. They also rated how distressing they believed the in-person (vs. cyberstalking) behaviours would be.
Results
Most of the participants believed police intervention was required (57.4%), yet fewer believed a crime occurred (32.7%). Overall, in-person stalking behaviours were seen as more distressing than were cyberstalking behaviours. Men were perceived as more responsible than women when they were both victims and perpetrators. There was an interaction between gender and victim response to stalking, such that male victims who ignored the perpetrator were considered less in need of police intervention than female victims who ignored the perpetrator (and male and female victims who confronted the perpetrator).
Conclusions
Both male victims and perpetrators may be perceived as more responsible by juries and informal supports. Men may be viewed as less in need of law enforcement support unless they have already confronted their pursuer.
{"title":"Perceptions of intimate partner stalking and cyberstalking: Do perpetrator and victim gender and victims' responses to stalking influence perceptions of criminal behaviour and responsibility?","authors":"Daniel L. Gordon, Christina M. Dardis","doi":"10.1111/lcrp.12240","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/lcrp.12240","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Purpose</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>While the gender of stalking victims and perpetrators may affect perceptions of stalking, limited research has examined whether victim responses to stalking (i.e. ignoring or confronting the perpetrator) are similarly influential. The present study examined whether perpetrator and victim gender and victim response (ignore vs. asking the perpetrator to stop) were related to perceptions of stalking and cyberstalking.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Participants (<i>N</i> = 223) from the United States were randomly assigned to one of four vignettes (gender × victim response) that included both in-person stalking and cyberstalking behaviours. Perceptions assessed included: whether police intervention was necessary, whether the scenario constituted a crime, and how responsible the perpetrator and victim were for the situation. They also rated how distressing they believed the in-person (vs. cyberstalking) behaviours would be.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Most of the participants believed police intervention was required (57.4%), yet fewer believed a crime occurred (32.7%). Overall, in-person stalking behaviours were seen as more distressing than were cyberstalking behaviours. Men were perceived as more responsible than women when they were both victims and perpetrators. There was an interaction between gender and victim response to stalking, such that male victims who ignored the perpetrator were considered less in need of police intervention than female victims who ignored the perpetrator (and male and female victims who confronted the perpetrator).</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Both male victims and perpetrators may be perceived as more responsible by juries and informal supports. Men may be viewed as less in need of law enforcement support unless they have already confronted their pursuer.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":18022,"journal":{"name":"Legal and Criminological Psychology","volume":"28 2","pages":"222-236"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2023-01-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50153603","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}
{"title":"Alternative explanations for pro-conviction judicial tendencies: A commentary on Berryessa et al. 2022","authors":"Kent Roach","doi":"10.1111/lcrp.12239","DOIUrl":"10.1111/lcrp.12239","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":18022,"journal":{"name":"Legal and Criminological Psychology","volume":"28 2","pages":"217-221"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2022-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48467011","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}
{"title":"Growing pains of addressing cognitive bias in legal contexts: A commentary on Berryessa et al. (2022)","authors":"Jeff Kukucka","doi":"10.1111/lcrp.12237","DOIUrl":"10.1111/lcrp.12237","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":18022,"journal":{"name":"Legal and Criminological Psychology","volume":"28 2","pages":"213-216"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2022-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48919606","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}
Heather M. Kleider-Offutt, Rachel Heiter, Ashley Meacham
{"title":"Judges are people too: A commentary on Berryessa et al. (2022)","authors":"Heather M. Kleider-Offutt, Rachel Heiter, Ashley Meacham","doi":"10.1111/lcrp.12236","DOIUrl":"10.1111/lcrp.12236","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":18022,"journal":{"name":"Legal and Criminological Psychology","volume":"28 2","pages":"204-207"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2022-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41419749","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