Direct eyewitness identification is widely used, but prone to error. We tested the validity of indirect eyewitness identification decisions using the reaction time-based concealed information test (CIT) for assessing cooperative eyewitnesses' face memory as an alternative to traditional lineup procedures. In a series of five experiments, a total of 401 mock eyewitnesses watched one of 11 different stimulus events that depicted a breach of law. Eyewitness identifications in the CIT were derived from longer reaction times as compared to well-matched foil faces not encountered before. Across the five experiments, the weighted mean effect size d was 0.14 (95% CI 0.08-0.19). The reaction time-based CIT seems unsuited for testing cooperative eyewitnesses' memory for faces. The careful matching of the faces required for a fair lineup or the lack of intent to deceive may have hampered the diagnosticity of the reaction time-based CIT.

Objective: Law enforcement officers often encounter alcohol-intoxicated suspects, suggesting that many suspects are presented with the challenge of grasping the meaning and significance of their Miranda rights while intoxicated. Such comprehension is crucial, given that Miranda is intended to minimize the likelihood of coercive interrogations resulting in self-incrimination and protect suspects’ constitutional rights. Yet, the effects of alcohol on individuals’ ability to understand and appreciate their Miranda rights remain unknown—a gap that the present study sought to address. Hypotheses: Informed by alcohol myopia theory (AMT), we predicted that intoxicated individuals would demonstrate impaired Miranda comprehension compared to sober individuals and those who believed they were intoxicated (but were in fact not; i.e., placebo participants). Method: After health screenings, participants completed the Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence–Second Edition verbal subtests, rendering a Verbal Comprehension Index (VCI) score. We randomly assigned participants to consume alcohol (n = 51; mean breath alcohol concentration [BrAC] = 0.07%), a placebo condition (n = 44; BrAC = 0.00%), or a sober control condition (n = 41; BrAC = 0.00%). All participants (N = 136) completed the Miranda Rights Comprehension Instruments (MRCI), which measured participants’ understanding of the Miranda warnings, recognition of the warnings, appreciation of their rights in interrogation and court settings, and understanding of Miranda-related vocabulary. Results: We found a significant effect of intoxication condition on participants’ understanding of Miranda warnings (η p2 = .14) and Miranda-related vocabulary (η p2 = .05) when controlling for VCI scores. Specifically, intoxicated participants received lower scores for understanding of warnings compared to sober and placebo participants, and lower scores for understanding of Miranda vocabulary compared to sober participants. Alcohol did not significantly impact Miranda rights recognition or appreciation. Conclusions: Alcohol intoxication may detrimentally impact some facets of Miranda comprehension. Thus, it is important that law enforcement consider refraining from questioning intoxicated suspects.

Although building rapport before an investigative interview is recommended-and sometimes empirically beneficial-to eyewitness memory, no research has experimentally examined the effects of maintaining rapport during a witness interview on adult eyewitness recall. As a result, the present study assessed the impact of rapport on eyewitness recall accuracy by comparing a pre-interview rapport only condition with a maintained rapport condition (where rapport was built before and maintained during the interview) and a no rapport control condition. Results revealed no benefits (or detriments) of building initial rapport-or any additional benefits of maintaining rapport-on witness recall quality, quantity, or 'don't know' responses. Our findings suggest that rapport or its maintenance may not directly affect eyewitness recall.However, as rapport is a humane eyewitness interviewing technique with some empirical support, we still advocate for its continued use.

As our nation grapples with responding to trillions of dollars in student loan debt, bankruptcy courts make daily decisions about whether to free individuals from these monetary obligations. To analyze factors that influence discharge decisions and to see whether prior findings of gender biases are replicated within the bankruptcy context, we scored and analyzed a sample of 667 student loan discharge cases for potential predictors of case outcome. Findings demonstrate that female debtors who are single parents are significantly more likely to have their student loans discharged than similarly situated male debtors, but females are significantly less likely than males to obtain a discharge when they allege a medical condition. Additionally, having attorney representation significantly increases debtors' odds of having their student loans discharged. Results are discussed in connection with the influence of debtor gender and potential gender biases that influence judicial decision-making.

No abstract