Public Eyewitness Confidence Can Be Influenced by the Presence of Other Witnesses

Four experiments were conducted to examine whether witnesses' public confidence ratings differ from their private ratings when there are social pressures to use confidence as an impression-management tool. In all four experiments, participants answered questions about a source event (a series of faces in the first three experiments and a simulated crime scene in the fourth). Half of the responses and confidence ratings were given privately and anonymously, and half were given publicly in front of one or more mock jurors. Two central findings emerged from the results. First, public confidence differed from private confidence only when there was more than one witness; when there were no other witnesses, public and private confidence were the same. Second, the direction of the change in public confidence in the multiple-witness settings was influenced by whether or not there was a possibility of being contradicted by the other witnesses. When there was no chance that the participants' responses could be contradicted, they raised their confidence ratings in public; when there was a chance that the other witnesses might contradict them, the participants lowered their public confidence ratings. The results are discussed in terms of self-presentation theory and implications for the legal system.     

You're OK,I'm OK: The Self-Presentation of Affective Reactions to Deprivation

Two experiments compared public and private reports of affective reactions to deprivation. In Experiment 1, participants completed a questionnaire concerning their resentment about poor marks in a course; they had previously been led to believe that another participant was either angry or not angry about his/her marks. Participants' ratings of resentment were more affected by the other participant's alleged emotions in a public than in a private reporting condition. In Experiment 2, employed adults completed a questionnaire concerning their affective reactions to the lack of day care facilities available for working parents; they had previously been led to believe that the experimenter was either upset or not upset about the facilities. When respondents' answers were public, their ratings of resentment were affected by the experimenter's alleged emotions, whereas under conditions of private responding, there was no effect of the experimenter's alleged emotions. Taken together, these experiments provide initial evidence that self-presentation motives can influence reports of affective reactions to deprivation. In particular, our data show that self-presentation can induce a matching strategy whereby public expressions of resentment mirror the expressions of salient others. Two experiments compared public and private reports of affective reactions to deprivation. In Experiment 1, participants completed a questionnaire concerning their resentment about poor marks in a course; they had previously been led to believe that another participant was either angry or not angry about his/her marks. Participants' ratings of resentment were more affected by the other participant's alleged emotions in a public than in a private reporting condition. In Experiment 2, employed adults completed a questionnaire concerning their affective reactions to the lack of day care facilities available for working parents; they had previously been led to believe that the experimenter was either upset or not upset about the facilities. When respondents' answers were public, their ratings of resentment were affected by the experimenter's alleged emotions, whereas under conditions of private responding, there was no effect of the experimenter's alleged emotions. Taken together, these experiments provide initial evidence that self-presentation motives can influence reports of affective reactions to deprivation. In particular, our data show that self-presentation can induce a matching strategy whereby public expressions of resentment mirror the expressions of salient others.     

<Emphasis Type="Italic">Miranda</Emphasis> Comprehension in Adults with Mental Retardation and the Effects of Feedback Style on Suggestibility

Interrogations present several major challenges to persons with mental retardation (MR). Sixty adults with mild MR completed measures of Miranda comprehension and tendency to yield to leading questions. In addition, suggestibility was assessed based on whether participants revised answers to questions in response to unfriendly, friendly, or neutral feedback to original responses. Furthermore, we examined how expressed confidence in answers to repeated questions varied with the type of feedback received. Results revealed that participants demonstrated marked difficulties understanding their Miranda rights and greater likelihood of changing answers to questions for which they received friendly feedback than for questions for which they received unfriendly or neutral feedback. Most participants who received positive reinforcement for their answers on a second trial expressed confidence about improvement from trial 1 to trial 2, although accuracy did not improve. Implications of these results are reviewed.     

Extra Effort During Memory Retrieval May Be Associated with Increases in Eyewitness Confidence

When testifying in court, witnesses are motivated to try as hard as possible to give an accurate account. This study tested the proposition that extra effort by eyewitnesses during a memory test can lead to higher confidence ratings without any accompanying changes in accuracy. Participant-witnesses answered multiple-choice questions about a classroom visitor who had spoken 5 days earlier. In the high-motivation condition participants could earn prizes based on their memory test performance; in the low-motivation condition there were no special incentives. Although the motivation manipulation did not affect mean witness confidence, the confidence–accuracy and effort–accuracy correlations were substantially smaller in the high-motivation condition than in the low-motivation condition. Furthermore, the confidence ratings for those participants who reported expending high levels of effort in both motivation conditions were significantly higher than the confidence ratings for the low-effort participants, despite the fact that response accuracy did not differ as a function of reported effort. These findings have important implications for understanding how pressures to perform well in the courtroom can affect eyewitness confidence.     

The myth of offenders' deception on self-report measure predicting recidivism: example from the Self-Appraisal Questionnaire (SAQ)

Two studies were conducted to investigate the vulnerability of the Self-Appraisal Questionnaire (SAQ) to deception and self-presentation biases. The SAQ is a self-report measure used to predict recidivism and guide institutional and program assignments. In the first study, comparisons were made between 429 volunteer offenders who completed the SAQ for research purposes and 75 offenders who completed the SAQ as a part of the psychological assessments process required for consideration for early release. In the second study, 106 participants over two sessions completed the SAQ and the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding. Participants completed both measures under two separate sets of instructions: (a) Answers would be used for research purposes, and (b) answers would be used for making decisions about their release to the community. Results from both studies reaffirmed previous findings that the SAQ is not vulnerable to deception, lying, and self-presentation biases.     

Mock jurors’ expectations regarding the psychological harm experienced by rape victims as a function of rape prototypicality

We examined mock jurors’ judgments in a rape case that was either prototypical (late-night assault by a stranger in a public place) or non-prototypical (daytime assault by an acquaintance in a private home). We also varied the psychological harm experienced by the victim as a result of the rape (mild anxiety or posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD)). We hypothesized that participants’ expectations regarding the level of harm the victim is likely to experience would mediate the effect of harm level on ratings of the victim’s credibility, and this indirect effect would be contingent on the prototypicality of the case. In a pilot experiment we demonstrated that people expect prototypical rape cases to be more traumatic for victims than non-prototypical cases. In the main experiment, and as predicted, participants in the Prototypical condition expected the victim to develop PTSD more than mild anxiety, but Non-Prototypical condition participants expected the opposite. In addition, a level of harm that was consistent rather than inconsistent with their expectations led participants to rate the victim as more credible; they also rated her as less responsible for what happened, and they thought the defendant was more likely guilty and that he should be incarcerated for a longer period of time.     

Do Prophylactics Prevent Inflation? Post-identification Feedback and the Effectiveness of Procedures to Protect Against Confidence-inflation in Earwitnesses

After viewing or hearing a recorded simulated crime, participants were asked to identify the offender’s voice from a target-absent audio lineup. After making their voice identification, some participants were either given confirming feedback or no feedback. The feedback manipulation in experiment 1 led to higher ratings of participants’ identification certainty, as well as higher ratings on retrospective confidence reports, in both the immediate and delay groups. Earwitnesses who were asked about their identification certainty prior to the feedback manipulation (experiment 2) did not demonstrate the typical confidence-inflation associated with confirming feedback if they were questioned about the witnessing experience immediately; however, the effects returned after a week-long retention interval. The implications for the differential forgetting and internal-cues hypotheses are discussed.     

Lawyers' Questioning: The Effect of Confusing Questions on Witness Confidence and Accuracy

The present study investigated the effect on witness confidence and accuracy of confusing questions often used by attorneys in court. Participants viewed a videotaped film and were individually questioned about the incident 1 week later. Half the participants were asked questions using six categories of confusing questions (negatives, double negatives, leading, multiple questions, complex syntax, and complex vocabulary); the remaining half were asked for the same information using simply phrased equivalents. Confusing questions reduced participant-witnesses' accuracy and suppressed confidence–accuracy relationships compared with the condition where simplified alternatives were asked. Witness performance was impaired by the fact that mock-witnesses rarely asked for a confusing question to be explained or qualified their answers. This experiment demonstrates the importance of ensuring that lawyers ask witnesses simple, clear, questions.     

Children's and adults’ realism in their event-recall confidence in responses to free recall and focused questions

Abstract

Two experiments examined the realism in the confidence of 8–9-year-olds, 12–13-year-olds and adults in their free recall and answers to focused questions after viewing a short video clip. A different video clip was shown in each experiment and the focused questions differed in difficulty. In both experiments the youngest age group, in contrast to the two other age groups, showed no overconfidence in their confidence judgements for the free recall. The free recall results also showed that the youngest group had lower completeness but similar correctness as the adults. There was a tendency, over both experiments, for the participants to show poorer realism for the focused questions than for the free recall, especially when questions with content already mentioned in the free recall were excluded from the analyses of the focused questions in Experiment 1. The study shows the importance of question format when evaluating the credibility of the confidence shown by 8–9-year-old children in their own testimony.     

Methodological artifacts in tests of rational choice theory

Criminal decision making is an inherently natural and highly individualized process; however, rather than allowing participants to self-identify the costs and benefits that impact their own decisions to offend, rational choice researchers have typically provided participants with a uniform list of consequences to consider. Indirect evidence suggests this technique may alter the participants’ perceptions of consequences, yet no study to date has examined this supposition directly. In the current study, participants were randomly assigned to experimental conditions in which they either received a list of traditional costs and benefits to assess or were asked to self-generate their own list to assess. As in past research, when participants were allowed to self-generated consequences they identified several “novel” costs/benefits that have certainty/severity rating comparable to many of the traditionally examined consequences. Results also showed that consequences are more likely to be perceived as possible outcomes (i.e., receive a non-zero probability) when they are presented by researchers than when they are self-generated. Finally, the average certainty and severity of negative consequences do not differ across condition, while ratings of the certainty and value of benefits from crime are relatively lower when they are presented by researchers. Implications for rational choice theory and survey research in criminology more broadly are discussed.     

“I Had a Confidence Epiphany!”: Obstacles to Combating Post-Identification Confidence Inflation

Research shows that eyewitnesses often become more confident with their selections from a lineup over time, a problem labeled "confidence inflation." Wells et al. (1998) Law and Human Behavior, 22, 603-647 suggested that eyewitnesses provide a confidence statement immediately following their selection to capture an unadulterated measure of confidence. Three experiments tested the effectiveness of introducing such a statement to combat the effects of confidence inflation on mock-juror judgments. All experiments provided evidence that the attributions participants formed about the eyewitness' confidence inflation differentially impacted their judgments. Although mock-jurors generally discredited eyewitnesses who showed confidence inflation and sometimes lowered probability of guilt ratings for the defendant, a clear exception occurred when mock-jurors attributed the inflation to an epiphany. Use of post-identification confidence statements to decrease the impact of confidence inflation in the courtroom may be insufficient.     

Psychopathy and affect consciousness in young criminal offenders

A key characteristic of psychopathy is the individual's problematic relation to certain affects, particularly shame. Previous research has studied relations between expressed shame and psychopathy. In this study, the author analyzes potential associations between psychopathy and consciousness of feelings (i.e., participants' ability to recognize and tolerate the feeling and describe how they believe it is expressed in their posture and verbal expressions). Psychopathy is assessed with the Psychopathy Checklist: Screening Version, and affect consciousness is assessed with a semistructured interview. Additionally, risk for criminal behavior, moral reasoning, cognitive distortions, and attachment style in the participants was assessed. The participants are 47 adolescent boys who were treated at juvenile delinquency homes. The results indicate that boys with higher ratings of psychopathy had lower consciousness of shame feelings and lower empathy scores. The results in combination with qualitative analyses of the interview answers are interpreted as indicating that consciousness of shame is specifically problematic for psychopathic adolescents.     

Children’s Susceptibility to Misidentifying a Familiar Bystander From a Lineup: When Younger is Better

Children from 5 to 12 years of age (N=779) were shown a videotape where a preschool teacher has money stolen from her wallet. Children were shown a lineup, and for children in the bystander condition, the lineup contained a familiar bystander without the thief. Children in the control condition viewed the same lineup but they had not seen the bystander in the videotape. Among the 11–12-year olds, participants in the bystander condition were significantly more likely than control participants to misidentify the familiar bystander. This effect was not found in children from 5 to 10 years of age. When children in the control condition were shown a lineup that contained the thief without the bystander, the 11–12-year olds were significantly more likely than the younger children to correctly identify the thief. These findings demonstrate that age can both increase and decrease the accuracy of children’s lineup identification accuracy depending on the task at hand and the content of a lineup.     

“I’d Know a False Confession if I Saw One”: A Comparative Study of College Students and Police Investigators

College students and police investigators watched or listened to 10 prison inmates confessing to crimes. Half the confessions were true accounts; half were false—concocted for the study. Consistent with much recent research, students were generally more accurate than police, and accuracy rates were higher among those presented with audiotaped than videotaped confessions. In addition, investigators were significantly more confident in their judgments and also prone to judge confessors guilty. To determine if police accuracy would increase if this guilty response bias were neutralized, participants in a second experiment were specifically informed that half the confessions were true and half were false. This manipulation eliminated the investigator response bias, but it did not increase accuracy or lower confidence. These findings are discussed for what they imply about the post-interrogation risks to innocent suspects who confess.     

知识产权公权化理论的解读和反思

知识产权的权利属性是知识产权研究的基本理论问题.因传统的视知识产权为私权的观点在面对知识产权相较于其他私权的特殊性及其领域内层出不穷的新问题时常常遭遇无法解释的困境,所以,有些学者提出了"知识产权公权化"理论,即在承认知识产权私权本质属性的前提下,指出知识产权是公权化的私权,试图以此来寻到新的"突破口".但事实上,该理论因其立论依据本身就存在疑问,是经不起推敲的,它是在社会思潮运动影响下对知识产权权利客体特殊性的一种误读.知识产权作为私权的根本属性不应该因为知识产权所呈现出的某些独特性而被改变,在当前承认并且强调知识产权的私权属性具有重大意义.     

Is That What I Said?: Witnesses' Responses to Interviewer Modifications

Modifications occur when interviewers contradict statements made by witnesses or imply that witnesses provided information that they (interviewers) did not provide. Because of their suggestive nature, modifications threaten the reliability of investigative interviews. This study investigated developmental differences in witnesses' responses to modifications during interviews as well as in inclusion of modified misinformation in subsequent answers. Preschool, elementary school, and college students were interviewed about a video presentation. In the experimental conditions, the interviewer contradicted information about the video provided by the participants. Participants then answered two sets of follow-up questions: one immediately following the interview and another 6–8 days later. Results indicated that participants were more likely to ignore modifications than to correct or agree with them. Adult participants were most likely to disagree with modifications. Preschoolers were most likely to incorporate modified misinformation into subsequent answers. Implications of these findings for investigative interviews are discussed.     

When scientists are adversaries,do participants lose?

In considering questions of the confidentiality of data, courts have focused their inquiry on the interests of litigants and the public, but they have neglected the fundamental privacy interests of participants. Because participants divulge their most private thoughts and experiences in research, involuntary breaches of their confidentiality should be barred. Congress has recongnized this principle in the provision of certificates of confidentiality for mental health research, but ambiguity in the relevant section of the Public Health Service Act renders such protection less strict than Congress intended. Protection of confidentiality should extend beyond litigation to secondary data analysis, when there is a significant risk that participants' identity will be divulged.     

Protective Vests in Law Enforcement: a Pilot Survey of Public Perceptions

The primary purpose of this study was to begin an examination of the relationship between public perception and the number of attachments on external protective vests worn by law enforcement. A secondary purpose was to examine perceptual differences between non-law enforcement majors and law enforcement majors. Images of six vests that systematically varied in the amount of external attachments were rated across eight attributes: (1) approachability, (2) militarized appearance, (3) intimidation, (4) professional appearance, (5) organization, (6) confidence instilled in an officer, (7) confidence instilled in the public, and (8) recognizable as law enforcement. Vests with more external attachments were rated as more militarized and intimidating. However, participants also rated militarized appearance and intimidation as the least important attributes when considering external protective vests. Confidence instilled (by the images of vests) in an officer and confidence instilled in the public were the highest-rated attributes. These findings suggest that a militarized and intimidating appearance might not detract from the public’s overall acceptance of external protective vests in law enforcement. In addition, law enforcement majors and non-law enforcement majors differed significantly in their ratings of all eight attributes. This suggests that exposure to law enforcement education might affect public perceptions of external protective vests. It is possible that education of the public on the function (e.g., load distribution) of external protective vest attachments might offset negative perceptions.     

The impact of general versus specific expert testimonyand eyewitness confidence upon mock juror judgment

Subjects (n=128) initially viewed an eyewitness of high or low confidence. Subsequently, participants viewed a psychologist who gave either espert testimony on the unreliability of eyewitness identification, specific expert testimony, or no expert (control) testimony. Subjects viewing expert testimony believed the eyewitness identified the gunman significantly less often, gave the defendant lower guilt ratings, estimated a lower general percentage of correct identifications under similar circumstances, estimated a lower percentage of general accurate eyewitness testimony, and gave significantly lower ratings to the belief that one can generally tell from eyewitness confidence whether an eyewitness is accurate than subjects in control conditions. Significant differences were also obtained between general and specific expert testimony. Participants viewing specific expert testimony estimated lower general percentages of correct identifications under the circumstances of the crime and reported relying more upon the psychologist's testimony than subjects viewing general expert testimony. Additionally, subjects viewing general expert testimony had significantly less confidence in their gunman vs. innocent person decision than subjects in specific testimony or control conditions. Subjects who viewed the high confidence eyewitness decided that the eyewitness correctly identified the gunman more often, gave the defendant higher guilt ratings, and estimated the general percentage of accurate eyewitness testimony to be significantly higher than jurors in low eyewitness confidence groups. The finding that jurors may continue to rely on eyewitness confidence to gauge the accuracy of the witness even after viewing expert testimony is discussed.     

Prior knowledge influences interpretations of eyewitness confidence statements: ‘The witness picked the suspect,they must be 100% sure%

When an eyewitness identifies a suspect from a lineup, it is important to know how certain they are about the decision. Even though eyewitnesses are likely to express certainty with words, past research shows that verbal confidence statements (e.g. ‘I’m pretty sure’) are prone to systematic misinterpretation. Until now, no one has examined how an evaluator's prior knowledge, such as which lineup member is the police suspect, influences their interpretation of eyewitness confidence about a lineup identification. Experiments 1 and 3 show that participants perceived the identical statement of confidence as meaning a higher and lower level of certainty, respectively, when the eyewitness's selection either matched or mismatched the police's suspect. Experiment 2 shows that these effects generally persist when the bias manipulation is manipulated between-subjects. Finally, Experiment 3 finds that clarifying the witness's statement with numeric information (e.g. I’m 80% sure) does not eliminate the influence of biasing information.