Förmågan till effektiv självreglering är väsentlig för personers självpresentation. Enligt teorin om "ego depletion" är självreglering en begränsad resurs vilken tillfälligt försämras om den överanvänds. I en förhörssituation kan detta bli problematiskt eftersom en självuttömd självpresentation kan bidra till minskad trovärdighet och ökad mottaglighet för ledande frågor. Detta kan förstärkas om vittnesmålet dessutom erläggs på ett annat språk än modersmålet. Syftet med studien var att undersöka om annat vittnesspråk än modersmål påverkar trovärdighet och erhållandet av ledande frågor. I ett experiment fick 60 personer uppskatta trovärdighet och formulera frågor till svenska respektive engelska vittnesmål. Därefter fick 12 oberoende personer skatta frågornas suggestibilitet. Resultatet visade att engelska vittnesmål (andraspråk) tenderade erhålla lägre trovärdighetsskattningar vilket kan bero på uttömd självreglering och misslyckade självpresentationer. Detta antyder att språk har inverkan på trovärdighet. Trots detta uppvisades ingen skillnad i andel ledande frågor beroende på språk. Framtida studier uppmanas testa effekten av "ego depletion" i autentiska förhörssituationer.

Language barriers in eyewitness testimonies may pose threats toward witnesses’ accuracy, and consequently on the outcome of judicial procedures. The present study aims to investigate the credibility and the extent of reported detail information of eyewitnesses’ testimony of a crime event, when the testimony is given in witnesses’ first language, second language, or second language through interpreter. Moreover, the study examines whether eyewitness suggestibility is affected by the language to which the testimony is provided. Participants (N=60) were exposed to a mock crime event and subsequently performed memory tests about that event. Results showed no differences in accuracy of suggestibility between experimental conditions. The personality trait social desirability showed no relation to suggestibility or the extent of inaccurate detail information provided in the present study. The findings are discussed in the context of implications, limitations and future directions.

Miranda abilities, individual characteristics, and contextual factors are critical elements to evaluate in determining the validity of Miranda rights waivers and confessions. Research indicates that many individuals waive their Miranda rights without adequate comprehension or reasoning. In addition, personality characteristics of suggestibility and compliance are key factors influencing waiver decisions. Furthermore, scholars found that situational anxiety likewise impairs Miranda abilities and waiver decisions. Previous research has investigated the effects of Miranda abilities, individual characteristics, and contextual factors on Miranda waivers and confessions by utilizing confession paradigms. A methodological limitation of these paradigms is the lack of volition and autonomy in committing the accused acts of wrongdoings. The current study of undergraduate students advances previous research through examining the detrimental impact of false accusations of wrongdoings committed independently and intentionally using a novel paradigm. This thesis sought to further the understanding of the effects of Miranda abilities (i.e., comprehension and reasoning), personality characteristics (i.e., suggestibility and compliance), and situational factors (i.e., false accusation) in relation to Miranda waivers and confession decisions. The final sample included 87 undergraduate students, of whom approximately 97% waived their rights and 40% falsely confessed to the wrongdoing. The results indicate that Miranda reasoning, suggestibility, and compliance significantly predict the likelihood of false confession. These findings can be used to inform policy changes as well as the evaluations of the validity of Miranda waivers and confessions.

Initially a central topic for psychology, suggestibility has been forgotten, rediscovered, evaded definition, sabotaged experimentation and persistently triggers epistemological short-circuits when interconnecting psychological questions of memory, childhood and scientificity, with concrete legal issues of child witnesses' credibility, the disclosure of sexual abuse and psychological expertise in courts of law. The aim of this study is to trace suggestibility through history, theory, research and practice, and to explore its efficacy at the intersection of psychology and law, by examining and comparing the. concrete case of child witness practice in England and Germany. Taking a transdisciplinary approach the study draws on two interrelated sources of 'data' combining historical, theoretical and research literature with the analysis of empirical data. A genealogy if theory and research is combined with the results of reflexive interviews, conducted in England and Germany with practitioners from all those professions involved in creating, applying or dealing with knowledge about child witnesses and suggestibility: judges, prosecutors, lawyers, police officers, psychologists (researchers, experts) and social workers. Drawing on the work of G. Deleuze and 1. Stengers this study shows how practical tensions around reliable witnesses, evidence and expertise merge pragmatically with theoretical movements employed to adjust the discipline, thereby causing frictions and voids. In this sense suggestibility provides a liminal resource: It transgresses disciplinary boundaries and pervades pragmatic and theoretical, global and personal, historical and actual considerations, creating voids that allow us to reconsider the pragmatics of change and to redefine the issue of critical impact, as well as to reformulate the problem of child witness practice and children's suggestibility. The study hopes to make a concrete contribution to facilitating the just prosecution of sexual abuse by adding transparency to the complex and at times unhelpfully polarised field of child witness practice. By exploring the 'pragmatics of change' the study furthermore hopes to give an unsettling and productive impetus to theoretical debates within critical approaches to psychology.

Most eyewitness identification protocols recommend withholding feedback after an identification has been made, at least until a measure of confidence can be gathered. Although much research has examined the impact of post-identification feedback on subsequent witness behavior and confidence, research addressing the importance of post-recall feedback remains largely incomplete. The current study examined the effects of post-recall feedback and question type on subsequent witness recall, confidence, and reports of view of the crime. In line with previous eyewitness identification research, it was predicted that participants receiving confirming post-recall feedback would be more confident in their prior recall compared to participants receiving neutral, no, or disconfirming feedback. One hundred and fifty-eight participants viewed a mock crime video of a robbery followed by an interview which included both open-ended and cued questions. Participants were then given either confirming, neutral, no, or disconfirming feedback and asked about their confidence and the clarity of their view of the perpetrator. Under the pretense that the recording equipment failed, participants were interviewed again using the same question format. The second interview was followed by a series of suggestive questions. After the second interview, participants were again asked about their confidence and self-reported quality of view of the perpetrator. Participant interviews were transcribed and scored for quantity, accuracy, and consistency by two blind, independent coders. Analyses revealed that feedback had a systematic impact on confidence such that participants who received confirming feedback were more confident in the overall accuracy of their prior memory accounts than those who received neutral, no, or disconfirming feedback and participants who received neutral or no feedback were more confident in the overall accuracy of their prior memory accounts compared to those in the disconfirming feedback condition. In line with previous eyewitness identification research, there was no significant relationship between recall accuracy and reported confidence. Results from the current study can be used to inform real-world investigative interviewers by highlighting the consequences of offering post-recall feedback. Specifically, feedback can impact witness confidence irrespective of actual recall accuracy.