| 1. |
- Ask, Karl, 1978, et al.
(author)
-
Why emotions matter: A test of stereotype and empathy accounts of the 'emotional victim effect'
- 2009
-
In: 19th Conference of the European Association of Psychology and Law, 2-5 September, Sorrento, Italy.
-
Conference paper (peer-reviewed)abstract
- It has been shown repeatedly that rape victims displaying controlled behavior when recounting the crime are judged as less credible than victims displaying negative emotions. Researchers have assumed that this is a result of stereotypes about crime victim reactions, but the actual mechanism has never been tested directly. In this paper, an alternative account is presented, proposing that the advantage of the emotional victim could lie in its ability to invoke stronger empathic-emotional reactions in the observer. The two accounts were pitted against each other in an experiment: Should the stereotype account be correct, then placing the observer under cognitive load would increase the effect of a victim’s emotional display. In contrast, should the empathy account be correct, then cognitive load would reduce the effect. One hundred eighty-nine police trainees watched a videotaped statement of an actress portraying a rape victim. The victim’s emotional display (emotional vs. neutral) and observers’ cognitive load while watching the statement (additional memory task vs. no memory task) were manipulated. Results showed that the emotional victim was believed more than the neutral victim, and that the effect was stronger under cognitive load. In addition, the effect was fully mediated by the match between the woman’s actual behavior and observers’ expectations. No evidence for a meditational role of observers’ own emotional reactions was found. In sum, the study provides empirical support for the traditional stereotype account, and has clear practical implications, showing that cognitive load increases the risk of attributional errors in judgments of victim credibility.
|
|
| 2. |
- Clemens, Franziska, 1981, et al.
(author)
-
Skulking around the dinosaur statue: Detecting children's deception via strategic disclosure of evidence
- 2008
-
In: Paper presented at the 5th meeting of the Nordic Network for Research in Psychology and Law (NNPL), 10-11 October 2008 in Copenhagen, Denmark.
-
Conference paper (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Since previous studies have shown the potential of late disclosure of evidence as a deception detection tool, this study examined whether or not these results can be replicated with children as liars and truth-tellers. It was hypothesized that the deception detection accuracy in the late disclosure condition would be significantly higher than in the early disclosure condition. In an experiment, 168 adult observers judged the veracity of 84 children (12–14 years), interviewed separately about a mock crime they had (liars) or had not (truth-tellers) committed. In half of the interviews the evidence was disclosed early, in the other half late. The accuracy rate was 56% for the early disclosure condition, and 63.1% for the late disclosure condition (a non-significant difference). Furthermore, the observers were better at detecting truthful statements (70.2%), than lies (48.8%). We will discuss the results in relation to past research and in terms of statement-evidence inconsistency.
|
|
| 3. |
- Granhag, Pär-Anders, 1964, et al.
(author)
-
Children recalling an event repeatedly – Effects on RM and CBCA scores
- 2006
-
In: Legal and Criminological Psychology. ; , s. 81-98
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The fact that abused children often talk about their experiences before entering the legal system is a neglected factor in terms of the validation of different reliability assessment techniques. Hence, the present study investigated the extent to which the scores of the reality monitoring technique (RM) and the criteria-based content analysis (CBCA) were affected by the number of times children recalled an experienced or an imagined event. Children (12-13 yrs, N=80) participated in an experiment where half the sample experienced a real event (an interaction with a stranger) and then recalled it either one or four times, and the other half imagined the same event and then recalled it either one of four times. The statements given at the final (or only) session were analysed with both CBCA and RM. On a multivariate level, both the CBCA and RM sets of criteria discriminated between truthful and fabricated statements. The total RM score (but not the total CBCA score) discriminated reliably between truthful and fabricated statements. RM (but not CBCA) was sensitive to the number of times the experienced or imagined event was recalled: increased presence of criteria after repeated recall.
|
|
| 4. |
- Granhag, Pär-Anders, 1964, et al.
(author)
-
Muntlighet vid domstol ur ett rättspsykologiskt perspektiv
- 2005
-
In: Bylander, E. & Lindblom, P. H. (red). Muntlighet vid domstol i Norden : en rättsvetenskaplig, rättspsykologisk och rättsetnologisk studie av presentationsformernas betydelse i förfarandet vid domstol i Norden. - Uppsala : Iustus Förlag. - 9176785939 ; , s. 267-290
-
Book chapter (other academic/artistic)abstract
- In this chapter we view the 'principle of orality' (a cornerstone in Swedish Law) from a legal psychology perspective. We review the relevant research literature and investigate to what extent the observer's (legal decision makers') perception, assessment and memory is affected by the presentation format used (e.g. whether the witness appear live or on video).
|
|
| 5. |
- Landström, Sara, 1980, et al.
(author)
-
A true or false confession? A case-study on the effects of presentation format and camera focus
- 2006
-
In: 3rd annual meeting of the Nordic Network for research on Psychology and Law, Turku, Finland, 2006.10.05.
-
Conference paper (peer-reviewed)abstract
- In 2003 (Stockholm, Sweden) a man was shot several times in the legs, and almost died as a consequence of the big loss of blood. The victim said he had recognized the person that shot him, and that he was sure it was his colleague. The colleague denied, but was convicted and sentenced to nine years imprisonment. In 2005 an anonymous man contacted a famous Swedish journalist, saying he was the one guilty of the shooting, and in order to prove this he agreed to be interviewed. In the present study we used this interview to investigate how the cameras point of view (experiment 1) and different presentation modes (experiment 2) affect observers perception of the suspect, the interviewer and the veracity judgments made. The interview was videotaped from three different angles. The first one showed both the man and the journalist, the second one showed only the man and the third only the journalist. Each videotape was shown to 32 participants who after watching the interview rated their perception of the suspect, their perception of the interviewer and assessed the suspects veracity. Observers self-reported cues to assessing veracity were also coded. For the second experiment we used the videotape showing both the man and the journalist, an audiotaped version and a transcript of the very same interview. Each version was shown to 32 participants who were given the same questionnaire as the participants in experiment 1. The results in experiment 1 showed that the camera angle affected the participants perception of the interviewer. Experiment 2 showed that both the participants perception of the suspect and their perception of the interviewer were affected by presentation mode
|
|
| 6. |
- Landström, Sara, 1980
(author)
-
CCTV, Live and Videotapes: How Presentation Mode Affects the Evaluation of Witnesses.
- 2008
-
Doctoral thesis (other academic/artistic)abstract
- Videotaped and closed circuit testimonies are often used in legal procedures, but little is known about the psychological effects of these courtroom technologies. The present thesis examines how different presentation modes affect observers’ perception, veracity assessment and memory. In Study I truth-telling and lying adult witnesses were interviewed. Mock jurors (N = 122) viewed the testimonies, either live or on video, and rated their perception and assessed the veracity of the witnesses’ statements. Live observers rated the witnesses’ appearance in more positive terms and assessed them as being more honest than did video observers. Furthermore, both live and video observers’ deception detection performance was at chance level (49.2% vs. 50.8%). Live observers incorrectly believed they had a better memory of the witnesses’ statements than video observers. Study ΙΙ was structurally similar to Study I (but used child witnesses). Mock jurors (N = 136) viewed truth-telling and lying children’s testimonies (either live or on video), rated their perception of the children and assessed the children’s veracity. Live observers rated the children’s statements as being more convincing than did video observers. The overall deception detection performance was 59.6%, which was significantly different from the level of chance. Live observers were better than chance, but not better than the video observers, in assessing veracity. Moreover, live observers believed they had a better memory of the children’s statements than video observers, and they also showed a significantly better memory performance. In Study III truth-telling and lying children were viewed and assessed by adult mock jurors (N = 240) either live, via two-way closed-circuit television (CCTV), or via pre-recorded video. The mock jurors rated their perception of the children’s testimonies and assessed the children’s veracity. The results showed that live observers perceived the children in more positive terms than did the CCTV observers, who in turn perceived the children in more positive terms than did the video observers. The observers’ overall deception detection accuracy was mediocre (58.3%). Study IV investigated the effects of different camera perspectives on adults’ perception and assessment of videotaped child testimonies. Truth-telling and lying children were interviewed and videotaped simultaneously by four cameras, each taking a different visual perspective (close-up shot/child only, medium shot/child only, medium shot/child and interviewer, long shot/child and interviewer). Mock jurors (N = 256) rated their perception of the children and assessed the veracity of the statements. Children seen in long shot were perceived in more positive terms, and children seen in close-up were perceived as having to think harder. The adult’s deception detection accuracy was at chance level. Taken together, the results showed that the presentation mode affected the observers’ perception of the witnesses’ testimonies. Thus, the thesis suggests that legal policy-makers should consider the outcome of psycho-legal research on different presentation modes when establishing and/or reforming standards for police interviews and courtroom procedures.
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
- Landström, Sara, 1980, et al.
(author)
-
Children’s live and. videotaped testimonies: How presentation mode affects bservers’ perception, assessment and memory.
- 2007
-
In: Legal and Criminological Psychology. ; 12:2, s. 333-348
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Purpose. Children's testimonies can be presented to the court in many different formats, for example, live, videotapes, closed-circuit television (CCTV) or transcripts. However, little is known about how different presentation formats affect the observers’ processing of the testimonies. This study investigated how two different presentation modes (live vs. video) affected observers’ perception, veracity assessments and memory of children’s appearance and statements. Method. Fourteen children (10-11 years old) either experienced an event or learned about the event by hearsay. Two weeks later, the children testified about the event as if they had all experienced it. Mock jurors watched the children’s testimonies either live (N = 68) or on video (N = 68), and rated their perception of the children’s statement and appearance, and assessed the children’s veracity. In addition, their memory of the children’s statement was examined. Results. The live observers perceived the children in more positive terms and rated the statements as being more convincing than did video observers. The observers rated the lying children as having to think harder than the truth-telling children. Both live and video observers’ ability to assess the children’s veracity was mediocre. Live observers had a better subjective, as well as objective, memory of the children’s statements than video observers. Conclusions. The results show that presentation mode influences both perception and memory of child witnesses’ testimonies. We argue that presentation mode is important to consider when evaluating and reforming courtroom procedures.
|
|
| 9. |
- Landström, Sara, 1980, et al.
(author)
-
Children’s live and. videotaped testimonies: How presentation mode affects observers’ perception, assessment and memory
- 2006
-
In: Paper presented at the 16th European Conference on Psychology and Law, Liverpool, Storbritannien, 06.06.30.
-
Conference paper (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The study investigated how different presentation modes (live vs. video) affected observers’ perception, veracity assessments and memory of children’s appearance and their statements. Six children experienced an event and eight children learned about the event by hearsay. Two weeks later the children testified about the event as if they had all experienced it. Mock jurors (N =136) viewed the children’s testimonies either live (N =68) or on video (N =68), and rated their perception and credibility of the children’s statement and appearance. In addition, their memory of the children’s statement was examined. Live observers rated the children’s statements as being more convincing than did video observers. The observers rated the lying children as having to think harder than the truth telling children. Moreover, the overall deception detection performance was 59.6%. Live observers (but not video observers) were better than chance in assessing veracity. Live observers believed they had a better memory of the children’s statements and they also showed a significantly better memory performance than video observers
|
|
| 10. |
- Landström, Sara, 1980, et al.
(author)
-
Children's testimony: Live vs. videotaped?
- 2006
-
In: Psychological Aspects of Legal Processes. ; , s. 65-71
-
Conference paper (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The study investigated how different presentation modes (live vs. video) affected observers perception, veracity assessments and memory of childrens appearance and their statements. Six children experienced an event and eight children learned about the event by hearsay. Two weeks later the children testified about the event as if they had all experienced it. Mock jurors (N =136) viewed the childrens testimonies either live (N =68) or on video (N =68), and rated their perception and credibility of the childrens statement and appearance. In addition, their memory of the childrens statement was examined. Live observers rated the childrens statements as being more convincing than did video observers. The observers rated the lying children as having to think harder than the truth telling children. Moreover, the overall deception detection performance was 59.6%. Live observers (but not video observers) were better than chance in assessing veracity. Live observers believed they had a better memory of the childrens statements and they also showed a significantly better memory performance than video observers.
|
|
