The influence of vehicle model and colour on assessments of speed and culpability: the case for (and against) Computer Generated Exhibits (CGE)

Computer Generated Exhibits (CGE) are frequently deployed in legal contexts under the rubric of demonstrative evidence, i.e. to facilitate juror comprehension. However, a number of legal and academic commentators have suggested that the nature of the computerised moving image could exert undue prejudice on decision makers, e.g. judge and/or jury. The current study aimed to assess the manipulation of vehicle characteristics (make and colour) when a road traffic accident was presented in the format of a computer generated animation (CGA). In experiment 1, two groups of subjects watched two different makes of car, a Range Rover Sport and a Volkswagen Touran in a black-and-white format; no significant differences emerged over vehicle model with regards to vehicle speed or overall responsibility for the accident. Experiment 2 presented the same vehicles to four groups of participants in full colour, with the cars in contrasting red or beige; significant differences emerged with regards to culpability for vehicle make only. The findings could have implications for the format and style of CGE used in legal settings.     

Protection motivation theory as a theoretical framework for understanding the use of protective measures

The use of defensive measures can be a double-edged sword: it can provide the means to protect people and property from potential criminal victimization, but can also be a costly and possibly unnecessary endeavor. However, research examining the factors contributing to the decision whether or not to engage in protective measures is often limited in both quantity and scope. In this article, we propose a theoretical framework for understanding the use of protective measures in response to criminal victimization threats based on Ronald Rogers’ protection motivation theory. Our discussion details Rogers’ theory, suggests variables and measures appropriate for the context of criminal victimization and protective responses, and provides guidance on testing and model adaptation issues. We hope that this will encourage further model development and testing to improve the understanding of individual protective behavior in response to crime or the threat of crime.     

Thinking about change for development practice: a case study from Oxfam GB

Development practice is informed by theories of change, but individuals and organisations may not make them explicit. Practitioners may be unaware of the extent to which strategic choices and debates are informed by disparate thinking about how history happens and the role of purposeful intervention for progressive social change. In the past few years, some Oxfam GB staff have been creating processes to debate their theories of change as part of an effort to improve practice. In this context, the authors introduce four sets of ideas about change, with a discussion of how they have been explored in two instances, and some of the challenges emerging from this process. Through explicitly debating theories of change, organisational decision-making processes can be better informed and strategic choices made more transparent.     

Expressed sexual assault legal context and victim culpability attributions

Legal scholars have argued that laws have an expressive function, specifically that sexual assault laws may convey social-level messages that victims are culpable for crimes against them. In a university sample, we conducted the first experimental test of legal scholars' proposal, hypothesizing that legal messages-specifically their clarity and effectiveness in conveying that sexual assault is a crime-affect victim culpability attributions. Results demonstrated that greater culpability was attributed to a victim of sexual assault within a context expressing unclear and ineffective sexual assault law than within a context clearly and effectively expressing that sexual assault is a crime. We also garnered empirical support for a mediation model, that is, negative affective reactions to a victim statistically accounted for the relationship between expressed legal context and victim culpability attributions. Implications for future psycholegal research and potential legal reforms are discussed.