'New regionalism' in Central America

Central American regionalism is in a state of disarray after having been surrounded by great enthusiasm in the early 1990s. This article explores whether a 'new regionalism' framework can improve our understanding of this turn of events. It is argued that Central American integration lacks a series of features assumed to characterise 'new regionalism'. It has not been accompanied by spontaneous societal integration, its main stimulus has come from external actors, and the goal of the process has narrowed from originally being human welfare and security in a wide sense, to primarily being integration in the global economy. This is reflected in the integrationist rhetoric, where globalisation has entered the centre stage and is presented as a threat to which regional action should respond. This change has also rendered regional agreements largely superfluous as the member states pursue policies aimed at global integration regardless of the integration process.     

The Effects of British and American Trial Procedures on the Quality of Juror Decision-Making

Compared to American trial procedures, British procedures provide a less distracting environment in which jurors can process trial evidence. Relying on theories of persuasion, it was predicted that jurors viewing British procedures would be less affected by extra-evidentiary cues and would be more sensitive to evidence strength variations than jurors in American trials. Participants (N = 245) viewed a mock trial in which trial procedure, judge's nonverbal behavior, and evidence strength were varied. Participants judged the British procedures to be more civil and fair than American procedures but were less likely to find for the plaintiff. Although jurors recalled more trial facts when they viewed British procedures, they were not more sensitive to variations in evidence strength. There was some evidence that British procedures may increase the influence of judge's nonverbal behavior on juror judgments. The relative benefits of different trial procedures are discussed.     

Helping to sort the liars from the truth‐tellers: The gradual revelation of information during investigative interviews

Research examining detection of verbal deception reveals that lay observers generally perform at chance. Yet, in the criminal justice system, laypersons that have not undergone specialist investigative training are frequently called upon to make veracity judgements (e.g., solicitors; magistrates; juries). We sought to improve performance by manipulating the timing of information revelation during investigative interviews. A total of 151 participants played an interactive computer game as either a truth‐teller or a deceiver, and were interviewed afterwards. Game information known to the interviewer was revealed either early, at the end of the interview, or gradually throughout. Subsequently, 30 laypersons individually viewed a random selection of interviews (five deceivers and five truth‐tellers from each condition), and made veracity and confidence judgements. Veracity judgements were most accurate in the gradual condition, p < .001, η² = .97 (above chance), and observers were more confident in those judgements, p < .001, η² = .99. Deceptive interviewees reported the gradual interviews to be the most cognitively demanding, p < .001; η² = .24. Our findings suggest that the detection of verbal deception by non‐expert observers can be enhanced by employing interview techniques that maximize deceivers' cognitive load, while allowing truth‐tellers the opportunity to respond to evidence incrementally.