This study investigated the influence of an authority figure on an eyewitness identification task. Subjects watched a staged crime and then were administered a photo lineup by either an authority or non-authority figure. Subjects who were administered a lineup by an authority figure were significantly more likely to choose someone from the lineup than subjects who were shown a lineup by a non-authority figure. Similarly, subjects who were given biased instructions were significantly more likely to choose someone from the lineup than subjects who were given unbiased instructions. These effect obtained whether the target was present or absent from the lineup. These data suggest that one way to minimize suggestibility of eyewitnesses is to replace the uniformed officer with a neutral individual. Alternatively, the effect of a police officer on a witness' choosing behavior may be eliminated by providing the witness with unbiased instructions.

This study addresses the use of attitude and personality variables as predictors of compensation and award in a personal injury suit. Safety seeking behavior and attitudes toward tort reform are introduced as case-specific factors that may predict this verdict decision. Two hundred registered voters were surveyed on scales measuring attitudes toward safety, tort reform, and psychiatrists. Subjects also indicated their demographic characteristics and the degree of compensation and amount of award they would render the plaintiff in a civil suit. Results indicated attitudinal variables were more predictive of compensation and award than were demographic variables. The implications of these findings are discussed.

The behavioral immune system (BIS) is comprised of a variety of psychological and behavioral defenses designed to protect against pathogenic threats. These processes predict various affective and behavioral responses in myriad human contexts, including putative decisions to mitigate exposure to environmental pathogens. We investigated whether the strength of BIS responses predicted jurors’ verdicts in a sexual assault trial, wherein strength of the evidence against the defendant was manipulated (ambiguous vs. strong) to determine the extent to which chronic activation of BIS predicted derogation of the defendant. Subsequent mediation analyses indicated that dispositionally activated BIS (as indexed by perceived vulnerability to disease) predicted greater likelihood of conviction by way of affective experiences of disgust, which in turn influenced participants’ cognitive appraisals of diagnostic evidence. Furthermore, such responses also elicited greater desire for social distance with the defendant. Evidence strength, however, did not moderate these effects. Findings provide preliminary evidence for how BIS responses may influence legal proceedings.

An analog study was devised to examine perceived differences between psychiatrists and psychologists in providing expert testimony on the insanity defense. The effects of issue involvement and initial attitude were also assessed. Subjects who had been exposed to the differences in training between the professionals were used. In a pilot investigation, subjects were exposed to identical testimony from a defense expert identified either as a psychiatrist or psychologist. Medical bias, as measured by the tendency to concur with the expert recommendations and endorse attitudes consistent with the M.D., was confirmed. This finding was especially strong among pro insanity defense subjects with low issue involvement. The failure to find a similar pattern among anti-insanity defense subjects with low issue involvement was thought to be an artifact of the absence of opposing testimony. The overall failure of highly involved anti insanity defense subjects to reach verdicts consistent with their initial attitudes, was also thought to result from the lack of opposing testimony. The primary study was designed to clarify the findings of the pilot investigation and to approximate a more authentic court situation by including an opposing expert. Witness credentials were manipulated while testimony remained constant. Some subjects were exposed to the Ph.D. for the defense and M.D. for prosecution and others to the M.D. for the defense and Ph.D. for the prosecution. Medical bias was evident in this study, again measured by the tendency to follow the recommendations of the M.D. and endorse attitudes consistent with those recommendations. Additionally, subjects tended to evaluate the psychiatrist more favorably than the psychologist. Subjects with low issue involvement were more susceptible to the influence of the medical expert. Highly issue involved subjects maintained their initial attitudes. Attitudes, issue involvement and credentials seemed to affect memory for facts of the case. In some instances, initial attitudes became stronger when mock jurors were exposed to the opposing view (polarization). Implications and limits of these findings were explored.

Under an adversarial legal system, witnesses� testimony may be challenged by the opposing lawyer during cross-examination. Cross-examination has been shown to negatively affect the accuracy of children�s event reports, but as yet, the mechanisms driving this effect are unknown. Experiment 1 aimed to tease apart the roles of question type and repeated interviewing in mediating children�s cross-examination performance. Five- and 6-year-olds (N = 82) and 9- and 10-year-olds (N = 103) took part in a staged event, and 1 to 2 days later they took part in a direct examination interview. Next, either 1 to 3 days or 6 months later, all children were interviewed for a second time. For half of the children, this second interview was a repeat of their direct examination interview. The remaining children were interviewed in a cross-examination format. A second interview reduced response accuracy after both short and long delays, however, cross-examination questioning impaired the accuracy of children�s reports the most. Although, overall, children have considerable difficulty answering cross-examination questions correctly, variation in their performance has been observed. Experiment 2 assessed whether individual differences in cognitive abilities mediate cross-examination performance. Five- and 6-year-olds (N = 116) and 9- and 10-year-olds (N = 58) visited the police station and subsequently reported their experiences in direct examination and cross-examination interviews. Children�s memory, receptive language ability, expressive language ability, and intelligence were also measured. Age, intelligence, and memory predicted aspects of cross-examination performance. Overall, these cognitive factors accounted for between 16.6% and 19.5% of the variance in cross-examination outcome measures. Given the negative effect of cross-examination on children�s responding, and our inability to identify the children who are most at risk of poor performance during this interview, Experiment 3 assessed our ability to facilitate children�s responding to cross-examination questioning. Specifically, the effect of manipulating the timing of a pre-trial intervention, which gives children practice and feedback at cross-examination questioning, was investigated. Five- and 6-year-olds (N = 88) and 9- and 10-year-olds (N = 108) visited the police station. One to 3 days later they completed the direct examination interview and 6 months after the event, children were cross-examined. The timing of the preparation intervention was varied (1-day, 1-week, 1-month before cross-examination), and the children�s subsequent cross-examination performance was compared to that of children in the control group. When the preparation intervention was delivered 1 day or 1 week before the cross-examination interview, children�s cross-examination performance was significantly improved. The findings from the three experiments suggest that cross-examination is likely to pose considerable problems for children, especially younger children. Our greater understanding of factors that influence children�s responding to cross-examination questioning may guide reform of the cross-examination process for child witnesses. Bottom-up initiatives, such as pre-trial preparation, and top-down changes, including educating professionals, expert testimony, and reducing the delay to cross-examination, may improve the reliability of child witnesses� testimony during cross-examination.

The ability to successfully distinguish truthful and deceptive messages within forensic contexts is important to preserve the integrity of the legal system. Research has shown that confession evidence is highly persuasive at a trial level and that false confessions leading to wrongful convictions are problematic within the judicial system. Some recent research also suggests that that neither lay observers nor law enforcement professionals are able to successfully distinguish truths and lies in the context of confessions. Therefore, the present safeguards in the judicial system may be inadequate to detect a false confession and prevent subsequent wrongful convictions. The research presented in this thesis was designed to explore the effectiveness of methods of detecting deception within forensically relevant contexts, specifically confessions. Study One examined the impact of presentation modality and the effectiveness of indirect deception measures on credibility assessments of autobiographical accounts depicting truthful and deceptive confessions. The outcome of this study revealed that fact finders were unable to accurately classify truthful and deceptive confessions across presentation modalities and that indirect measures were unsuccessful in this context. In light of these findings, subsequent studies examined the validity of statement content analysis to discern truth from deception within the context of confessions. Study Two assessed evaluations of Criteria-based Content Analysis and the Aberdeen Report Judgment Scales, as applied by untrained observers to discriminate truthful and deceptive confessions. Findings revealed null effects and demonstrated that training in the application of content-based evaluations is an integral element of the valid application of such measures to detecting deception. Studies Three, Four and Five, therefore incorporated a comprehensive training program and focused on the application of a theoretically based method for detecting deception, the Aberdeen Report Judgement Scales, to the analysis of forensically relevant statements describing confessions, alibis and victimisation accounts. Overall, findings revealed some modest evidence for the application of this framework within deceptive contexts, however, account differences as a function of truth status were often rather small and assessments on many dimensions produced null findings. These results are discussed in terms of theoretical and practical implications for discerning truths and lies within forensic contexts.

Under an adversarial legal system, witnesses� testimony may be challenged by the opposing lawyer during cross-examination. Cross-examination has been shown to negatively affect the accuracy of children�s event reports, but as yet, the mechanisms driving this effect are unknown. Experiment 1 aimed to tease apart the roles of question type and repeated interviewing in mediating children�s cross-examination performance. Five- and 6-year-olds (N = 82) and 9- and 10-year-olds (N = 103) took part in a staged event, and 1 to 2 days later they took part in a direct examination interview. Next, either 1 to 3 days or 6 months later, all children were interviewed for a second time. For half of the children, this second interview was a repeat of their direct examination interview. The remaining children were interviewed in a cross-examination format. A second interview reduced response accuracy after both short and long delays, however, cross-examination questioning impaired the accuracy of children�s reports the most. Although, overall, children have considerable difficulty answering cross-examination questions correctly, variation in their performance has been observed. Experiment 2 assessed whether individual differences in cognitive abilities mediate cross-examination performance. Five- and 6-year-olds (N = 116) and 9- and 10-year-olds (N = 58) visited the police station and subsequently reported their experiences in direct examination and cross-examination interviews. Children�s memory, receptive language ability, expressive language ability, and intelligence were also measured. Age, intelligence, and memory predicted aspects of cross-examination performance. Overall, these cognitive factors accounted for between 16.6% and 19.5% of the variance in cross-examination outcome measures. Given the negative effect of cross-examination on children�s responding, and our inability to identify the children who are most at risk of poor performance during this interview, Experiment 3 assessed our ability to facilitate children�s responding to cross-examination questioning. Specifically, the effect of manipulating the timing of a pre-trial intervention, which gives children practice and feedback at cross-examination questioning, was investigated. Five- and 6-year-olds (N = 88) and 9- and 10-year-olds (N = 108) visited the police station. One to 3 days later they completed the direct examination interview and 6 months after the event, children were cross-examined. The timing of the preparation intervention was varied (1-day, 1-week, 1-month before cross-examination), and the children�s subsequent cross-examination performance was compared to that of children in the control group. When the preparation intervention was delivered 1 day or 1 week before the cross-examination interview, children�s cross-examination performance was significantly improved. The findings from the three experiments suggest that cross-examination is likely to pose considerable problems for children, especially younger children. Our greater understanding of factors that influence children�s responding to cross-examination questioning may guide reform of the cross-examination process for child witnesses. Bottom-up initiatives, such as pre-trial preparation, and top-down changes, including educating professionals, expert testimony, and reducing the delay to cross-examination, may improve the reliability of child witnesses� testimony during cross-examination.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of North Texas, Dec., 2007. / Title from title page display. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Drexel University, 2009. / Includes abstract and vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 68-73).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of California, San Diego, 1998. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 107-111).