This is the accepted version of the paper.This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. Permanent repository link Method:The current study explored the transcripts of child witnesses with ID, relative to those of typically developing (TD) age-matched children, and assessed how mock jurors perceived these transcripts in the absence of knowledge of group (ID or TD) membership. A further aim of this research was to determine whether perceptions of credibility were associated with levels of free recall and witness characteristics (anxiety and mental age). Results:Mock jurors rated the testimony of children with ID as less credible than that of a TD age-matched comparison group. This was largely due to the transcripts of the children with ID containing fewer details than those of the TD children. Anxiety and mental age were found to have no effect on perceived levels of credibility.Conclusions: It appears that even in the absence of knowledge of whether a child does or does not have ID, this factor still affects perceptions of credibility among mock jurors. Our findings suggest that fundamental differences in the quality of the witness transcripts lead to lower perceptions of credibility for children with ID.
Source identification tests provide a stringent method for testing the suggestibility of memory because they reduce response bias and experimental demand characteristics. Using the techniques and materials of Maria Zaragoza and her colleagues, we investigated how state anxiety affects the ability of undergraduates to identify correctly the source of misleading post-event information. The results showed that individuals high in state anxiety were less likely to make source misattributions of misleading information, indicating lower levels of suggestibility. This effect was strengthened when forgotten or non-recognised misleading items (for which a source identification task is not possible) were excluded from the analysis. Confidence in the correct attribution of misleading post-event information to its source was significantly less than confidence in source misattributions. Participants who were high in state anxiety tended to be less confident than those lower in state anxiety when they correctly identified the source of both misleading post-event information and non-misled items. The implications of these findings are discussed, drawing on the literature on anxiety and cognition as well as suggestibility.
This is the unspecified version of the paper.This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. Cross-examination of children with and without intellectual disability 2 Permanent repository link: AbstractThe present study assessed how children with a range of cognitive abilities fared during a mock cross-examination. Ninety children (aged 4 to 11 years; 18 with intellectual disabilities [ID], 13 with borderline intellectual disabilities [BID], and 59 who were typically developing [TD]) witnessed a staged event, participated in an initial forensic interview (a few days later), and were cross-examined by a barrister-in-training (ten months later). During cross-examination, 98% of all children changed at least one response from their initial interview when challenged. However, group differences in performance (total number of changed responses, 'resistance' to challenges), controlling for age and memory for event details, were not significant or did not prove reliable at the level of individual group contrasts. Overall, little robust evidence for group differences in performance on crossexamination could be identified, and memory for event details was the most reliable predictor of performance. Keywords: Child witnesses; cross-examination; intellectual disabilitiesCross-examination of children with and without intellectual disability 3 Cross-examination of children with and without intellectual disabilitiesIn an adversarial system of justice such as that of the UK, Australia and the USA, there is a strong emphasis on oral testimony from witnesses about the facts of a disputed case (Ellison, 2001). In court, following the presentation of direct evidence by the prosecution (testimony from the victim, witness or defendant), cross-examination is undertaken by opposing counsel to challenge the reliability of a witness's evidence and, ostensibly, to search for the truth (Wellman, 1986;Yarmey, 1979). Effective cross-examination highlights inconsistencies in witness testimony. Yet the techniques employed to do this, such as pressing the witness to change their response (Zajac, Gross & Hayne, 2003), accusing the witness of lying (Davies, Henderson & Seymour, 1997;Plotnikoff & Woolfson, 2009;Spencer, 2012), repetitive and complex questioning (Plotnikoff & Woolfson, 2012;Zajac, 2009) and deliberately setting the sequence of questioning to confuse the witness (Glissan, 1991) are, in reality, concerned with discrediting a witness (Henderson, 2002). The demands on a witness to produce reliable oral evidence, often many months or even years, after an event are high, and witnesses find the process stressful, aggressive and anxiety provoking (Plotnikoff & Woolfson, 2009Zajac, 2009 However, the questions (and questioning style) used during cross-examination often run counter to available research/protocols, and the use of ABE guidelines does not extend to the process of cross-examination. In fact, legal professionals show considerable resistance to proposals to alter cross-examination procedures (see Spence...
Little research has been carried out into the effects of anxious mood at the time of either the encoding of misleading post-event information or the time of its possible retrieval, on subsequent suggestibility. Participants comprised 160 first-year undergraduates. Using a standard suggestibility paradigm, half of all participants were exposed to misleading information while half were nonmisinformed controls. In addition there were four state anxiety conditions, dependent on the timing of the anxious mood induction: at the time of encoding misleading information; at retrieval only; at both encoding and retrieval; or at neither encoding nor retrieval (controls). Results showed memory accuracy for non-suggestible items was unaffected by the anxious mood induction. With respect to suggestibility, there was a strong effect of misleading information. In addition, within the misinformed group, all three groups who experienced the anxious mood induction were significantly less suggestible than controls. These findings are discussed both in terms of theories of anxiety and cognition and the applied implications for the increasing use by the police of video-recorded witness interviews.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.