Elasticity in evaluations of criminal evidence: Exploring the role of cognitive dissonance

Purpose. Previous experiments have demonstrated asymmetrical scepticism in investigators' judgments of criminal evidence – evidence inconsistent (vs. consistent) with the dominant hypothesis about a case is judged as less reliable. In addition, some types of evidence (e.g., witness testimony) are more susceptible to asymmetrical scepticism than others (e.g., DNA evidence), indicating varying degrees of elasticity. This article proposes that inconsistent evidence arouses cognitive dissonance, and that the dissonance can be reduced through either asymmetrical scepticism (for high‐elasticity evidence) or belief change (for low‐elasticity evidence). The hypotheses are tested in two experiments. Methods. In both experiments, law students made a preliminary judgment about the guilt of a suspect in a homicide case, and subsequently received a piece of DNA or witness evidence which was either consistent or inconsistent with the preliminary judgment. The extent to which participants changed their guilt judgments, judged the additional evidence as reliable, and felt dissonance served as the main dependent variables. Results. Inconsistent (vs. consistent) evidence did arouse stronger dissonance, but only for witness (and not DNA) evidence. Experienced dissonance (Experiment 1) and dissonance reduction (Experiment 2) accounted for the effect of the evidence on changes in guilt judgments, but not for the effect on reliability judgments. The greatest dissonance reduction was observed among participants who received inconsistent witness evidence but did not change their guilt judgments accordingly. Conclusions. It appears that dissonance plays a significant, although complex, role in investigative judgments of guilt and reliability. Alternative dissonance‐reducing mechanisms that can account for the findings and practical implications are discussed.     

EARLY INTERVENTION IN NEW ZEALAND FAMILY COURT CASES

In April 2010 the New Zealand Family Court introduced the National Early Intervention Process (NEIP) to diversify its previous unitary dispute resolution pathway into two tracks (standard and urgent). A “triage” model is now in use to assess and assign cases appropriately. This article outlines the key milestones in the Family Court's 30‐year history which have led to this new initiative to reduce delays and help avoid the escalation of family conflicts over the care of children into bitter and intractable disputes. NEIP represents the most overarching reform of the Family Court since the Court's inception in 1981.     

PARENTING AND CRIME: AN EVIDENCE‐BASED REVIEW WITH IMPLICATIONS FOR THE NEW ZEALAND FAMILY AND YOUTH COURT

This article explores the effect parenting can have on child development. It considers child attachment theory, various parenting styles, and specific child and family factors that contribute to a child's social and emotional development. The article concludes that good parenting and good outcomes for children do not happen by chance. The foundation must be planned and made secure.     

Stipends in Volunteer Civic Service: Inclusion,Retention, and Volunteer Benefits

What is the role of stipends as an institutional facilitator in volunteer civic service? By examining the relationship of stipend receipt to volunteer diversity, time commitment, and perceived benefits from a longitudinal study of older adults serving in Experience Corps, this article assesses stipend status relative to volunteer sociodemographic characteristics, motivations, intensity and duration of time served, and volunteers’ self‐reported benefits. The findings underscore how stipends may promote participant diversity. In particular, stipended older adult volunteers serve for longer periods of time, but their motivations for serving do not differ. Stipended volunteers report higher perceived benefits than nonstipended volunteers. The results suggest that stipends may leverage wider inclusion, increase retention, and contribute to other benefits, but additional research is needed using more controlled and comparative designs.     

Electoral losers revisited – How citizens react to defeat at the ballot box

The paper seeks to reconcile insights from winner-loser gap research with mainstream understanding of election legitimacy. The paper acknowledges that winning and losing elections creates differential incentives for citizens to remain supportive of their political system, but it argues that losers nevertheless have enough reasons to remain supportive in absolute terms. Drawing on democratic theory, the paper develops a rationale for why citizens are willing to accept electoral defeat voluntarily, and suggest a new way to conceptualize citizen reactions to election outcomes. It presents findings from a sample of election studies in established democracies to show that winners typically become more supportive whereas losers at minimum retain their level of support from before the election. It concludes that elections, when reasonably well executed, as they most often are in established democracies, build system support rather than undermine it.     

<Emphasis Type="Italic">Society’s</Emphasis> Books of Note

Society’s Books of Note

Society’s Books of Note March/April 2011