Law and Human Behavior最新文献

Objective: We replicated research by ten Brinke and Porter (2012), who reported that a combination of four behavioral cues (word count, tentative words, upper face surprise, lower face happiness) could accurately discriminate deceptive murderers from genuinely distressed individuals, pleading for the return of a missing relative.

Hypotheses: We hypothesized that each of the four behavioral cues identified in the original study would be similarly related (i.e., size, direction, significance) to veracity in a novel set of pleaders. With these cues as predictors, we also hypothesized that logistic regression models-separately testing the original and replication samples-would produce similar accuracy rates exceeding chance in discriminating genuine from deceptive pleaders.

Method: We gathered a new sample of public appeals, including 82 genuine and 14 deceptive pleaders. After establishing ground truth, we transcribed video-recorded pleas and coded them for the presence of upper face surprise and lower face happiness. We used Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count to determine word count and the proportion of tentative words in each appeal.

Results: We found support for several hypotheses. Tentative words were used significantly more by deceptive (vs. genuine) pleaders in both the original and replication samples. Deceptive pleaders used significantly fewer words in both samples, although this relationship was significant only in the original sample. Liars in both samples smiled more than truth-tellers, although this relationship was statistically significant only in the replication sample. However, predictive accuracy was poor and did not differ from chance in the replication sample.

Conclusions: Findings do not provide a tidy picture of the reliability of behavioral cues to deception. Although some behavioral cues did replicate across samples, others did not. More research will be necessary to understand the factors that produce variable findings across samples, despite using the same methods of investigation. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

Objective: The Alford plea allows defendants to maintain innocence while pleading guilty, but this option is largely unknown to the public, and its effects are unknown to researchers and practitioners. Some legal scholars have argued that the Alford plea may attract innocent defendants who may not otherwise accept a plea, whereas others have asserted that it offers a beneficial alternative for those wanting to preserve their reputations and avoid the more severe consequences of a trial conviction. Applying a social psychological lens, we examined how the Alford plea influences innocent and guilty mock defendants' plea decision making.

Hypotheses: We predicted that whereas guilty mock defendants would be more likely to accept a plea overall, the Alford variant would increase the rate at which innocent mock defendants accept pleas.

Method: We conducted two studies: In Study 1, 406 Prolific Academic participants read a vignette in which they were either innocent or guilty of involuntary manslaughter; in Study 2, we used an interactive simulation of legal procedures in which 367 innocent Testable Minds participants were accused of larceny. In both studies, participants were offered either a traditional plea requiring them to admit guilt or an Alford plea allowing them to maintain innocence.

Results: As predicted, we found that guilty participants were more likely to accept a plea overall in Study 1 (OR = 10.16, 95% CI [6.38, 16.19]), but we did not observe an effect of Alford. In Study 2, innocent participants who rejected an initial plea were more likely to accept a second plea (OR = 3.61, 95% CI [1.28, 10.20]) if it was an Alford (and allowed them to maintain innocence). Additionally, many participants in both studies cited self-presentation-related reasons for their plea decisions.

Conclusion: Our findings suggest that the Alford plea may increase the risk of false guilty pleas, a finding that has important implications for criminal defendants and the attorneys who advise them. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

Objective: We examined whether U.S. college students across multiple disability types were at an increased risk for sexual victimization (compared with students without disability) and whether disability type or registration with the accessibility office was associated with odds of reporting sexual victimization experiences to any campus-designated program/resource.

Hypotheses: We predicted (a) students with disabilities will have higher odds of sexual victimization than students without disabilities, (b) student survivors with disabilities will have higher odds of reporting than student survivors without disabilities, and (c) student survivors with disabilities who are registered with the accessibility office will have higher odds of reporting than student survivors with disabilities who are not registered.

Method: This study used the 2019 Association of American Universities campus climate survey data (N = 163,190) to examine experiences with and reporting of sexual victimization through a series of mixed-effects logistic regression models. We expected that students with disabilities would be more likely to experience and report sexual victimization and that registration with accessibility services would further increase reporting.

Results: Students across disability types were more likely than students without disabilities to experience sexual victimization. Among student survivors, students with disabilities were more likely to report their victimization to at least one program/resource than students without disabilities. Student survivors who were registered with the campus accessibility office had a higher likelihood of reporting to each program/resource examined.

Conclusions: Findings reinforce the importance of collaboration across programs/resources to ensure care to student survivors irrespective of students' points of contact. Given that student survivors with disabilities are reporting, institutions should unpack "what's working" and tailor strategies to encourage reporting among student survivors who are less likely to report. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

Objective: Question-type classification is widely used as a measure of interview quality. However, question-type coding is a time-consuming process when performed by manual coders. Reliable automated question-type coding approaches would facilitate the assessment of the quality of forensic interviews and court testimony involving victims of child abuse.

Hypotheses: We expected that the reliability achieved by the automated model would be comparable to manual coders.

Method: We examined whether a large language model (Robustly Optimized Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers Approach) trained on questions (N = 351,920) asked in forensic interviews (n = 1,435) and trial testimony (n = 416) involving 3- to 17-year-old alleged victims of child sexual abuse could distinguish among (a) invitations, (b) wh-questions, (c) option-posing questions, and (d) nonquestions.

Results: The model achieved high reliability (95% agreement; κ = .93). To determine whether disagreements were due to machine or manual errors, we recoded inconsistencies between the machine and manual codes. Manual coders erred more often than the machine, particularly by overlooking invitations and nonquestions. Correcting errors in the manual codes further increased the model's reliability (98% agreement; κ = .97).

Conclusions: Automated question-type coding can provide a time-efficient and highly accurate alternative to manual coding. We have made the trained model publicly available for use by researchers and practitioners. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

Objective: There is an increasing recognition of the necessity to establish the predictive validity of risk assessment scores within specific population subgroups, particularly those (including Indigenous peoples) who are overrepresented in the criminal justice system. I compared measures of discrimination and calibration of the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI) in Indigenous and non-Indigenous youth probationers in Ontario, Canada.

Hypotheses: Compared with non-Indigenous youth, Indigenous youth would have higher risk scores and reoffense rates. The YLS/CMI would predict reoffending and time to reoffense significantly and comparably for Indigenous and non-Indigenous youth, but there would be group difference discrimination (sensitivity, specificity) and calibration (positive predictive value, negative predictive value).

Method: Justice ministry-supplied data on 400 Indigenous and non-Indigenous youth (330 male, 70 female) individually matched on key background variables were analyzed to provide measures of discrimination and calibration of the YLS/CMI, with 3-year recidivism as the primary outcome.

Results: Indigenous youth were assessed at significantly higher risk than non-Indigenous youth (d = .60); 70% of Indigenous youth and 46% of non-Indigenous youth reoffended (ϕ = .24). Overall measures of discrimination (area under the curve) and calibration (logistic regression) were significant and did not differ across groups. Cross-area under the curve results indicated that the YLS/CMI discriminated Indigenous recidivists from non-Indigenous nonrecidivists but differentiated Indigenous nonrecidivists from non-Indigenous recidivists at chance level. In addition, recidivism was underestimated for low-risk Indigenous youth compared with non-Indigenous youth, but specificity was also low; only 28% of Indigenous youth who did not reoffend were assessed as low risk. Results were largely consistent across male and female youth.

Conclusions: Examining subgroup predictive validity using multiple indices provides important information that should inform policy and practice discussions regarding fair use of risk assessment tools. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

Objective: The present study aims to identify meaningful distinct subgroups of legal legitimacy, thereby addressing the need to move beyond a general legitimacy-based model.

Hypotheses: We hypothesized (1) we would find distinct profiles for legal legitimacy, (2) perceived procedural justice would predict the identified profiles, and (3) profiles with low normative alignment or duty to obey scores would be associated with disadvantaged groups.

Method: This study utilized a subset of survey items from the Chinese General Social Survey 2015 to measure legal legitimacy. Eight survey items, selected based on theoretical considerations, underwent a confirmatory factor analysis to assess their suitability for loading onto the two dimensions of legal legitimacy. A latent profile analysis was then performed on the scores obtained from the eight items to identify distinct profiles of legal legitimacy. Multinomial logistic regression models were estimated to examine the associations between the identified profiles, procedural justice, and sociodemographic characteristics. The analyses were conducted on a large sample of Chinese citizens (N = 3,475, 47.8% males; M_age = 50.3 years, SD = 16.8).

Results: We identified four distinct profiles of legal legitimacy, namely contented conformist, relatively satisfied conformist, ordinary conformist, and cynical conformist. In support of the construct validity of the profiles, we found that these profiles differed on key factors of procedural justice and multiple sociodemographic variables.

Conclusions: Our findings demonstrate population heterogeneity in legal legitimacy and underscore the importance of a multidimensional conceptualization. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

Objective: We aimed to review research on recidivism risk assessment tools with individuals convicted of child sexual exploitation material (CSEM) offenses and make recommendations for use in forensic, correctional, and legal settings.

Hypotheses: Multiple tools would be defensible to use with individuals convicted of CSEM offenses.

Method: We discuss a minimum threshold of predictive accuracy to justify using a risk tool as an improvement on the typical level of accuracy expected from unstructured professional judgment. Beyond this minimum threshold, we offer additional considerations that researchers and practitioners can use in evaluating and selecting risk tools.

Results: We identified nine risk assessment tools with predictive accuracy research on individuals convicted of CSEM offenses: Child Pornography Offender Risk Tool (CPORT), Risk Matrix 2000/Sex (RM2000/S), OASys Sexual Reoffending Predictor-Indecent Images (OSP/I), Static-99R, STABLE-2007, ACUTE-2007, Post Conviction Risk Assessment (PCRA), Level of Service Inventory-Ontario Revision (LSI-OR), and Offender Group Reconviction Scale 3 (OGRS3).

Conclusion: The CPORT, RM2000/S, STABLE-2007, and ACUTE-2007 (in conjunction with the STABLE-2007) are all defensible tools to use for assessing risk of any sexual recidivism or CSEM recidivism, specifically. The OSP/I consists of a single risk factor and considers risk of CSEM recidivism among all individuals convicted of sexual offenses, not only among individuals convicted of CSEM offenses. There is some support for Static-99R and the OGRS3, but they are not recommended options at this time, for different reasons. The PCRA and LSI-OR general recidivism risk tools have some empirical support in predicting general recidivism among CSEM samples (and sexual recidivism for the PCRA), with limitations noted. The use of multiple tools may have value in assessing risk and structuring management in CSEM cases; however, how they are best combined for these samples is still unclear. We expect research in this area to increase rapidly. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).