Narchet et al. on Modeling the Influence of Investigator Bias on the Elicitation of True and False Confessions

Professor Dr. Fadia M. Narchet of the University of New Haven, Professor Dr. Christian A. Meissner of the University of Texas at El Paso, and Professor Dr. Melissa B. Russano of Roger Willliam University, have published Modeling the Influence of Investigator Bias on the Elicitation of True and False Confessions, forthcoming in Law and Human Behavior. Here is the abstract:

The aim of this study was to model various social and cognitive processes believed to be associated with true and false confessions by exploring the link between investigative biases and what occurs in the interrogation room. Using the Russano et al. (Psychol Sci 16:481–486, 2005) paradigm, this study explored how perceptions of guilt influenced the frequency and type of interrogation tactics used, suspect’s perceptions of the interrogation process, the likelihood of confession, and investigator’s resulting perceptions of culpability. Results suggested that investigator bias led to the increased use of minimization tactics and thereby increased the likelihood of false confessions by innocent participants. In contrast, the manipulation of investigator bias had no direct or indirect influence on guilty participants. These findings confirm the important role of investigator bias and improve our understanding of the decision-making process associated with true and false confessions.

De Mulder et al. on CORMAS: A Computerized Tool for the Analysis of Eyewitness Memory Correspondence

Professor Richard V. De Mulder of the Erasmus University Centre for Computers and Law, and colleagues, have published CORMAS: A Computerized Tool for the Analysis of Eyewitness Memory Correspondence, European Journal of Law and Technology, v. 1, no. 3 (2010). Here is the abstract:

This paper presents a new approach to the study and assessment of eyewitness memory reports. The Eyewitmem Project, an interdisciplinary research initiative financed by the European Commission, attempts to use psychological knowledge and computer-aided document analysis as well as magnetic (fMRI) scans of the brain to measure the reliability of eyewitness statements in legal contexts. The paper focuses mainly on the document analysis part of the project, for which the CODAS software, developed by Erasmus University, is used.

Call for Papers: AP-LS 2011: American Psychology – Law Society Annual Meeting

A call for papers — with submission deadline of 15 September 2010 — has been issued for AP-LS 2011: The 2011 American Psychology – Law Society Annual Meeting, to be held 2-6 March 2011, in Miami, Florida, USA.

The meeting will be held in conjunction with the 4th International Congress of Psychology and Law.

Proposals for AP-LS 2011 are invited respecting “symposia, papers, and posters addressing topics in all areas of psychology and law. We especially welcome proposals that are empirically based and those that involve new and emerging topics within psychology and law.”

For more information, please see the call for papers.

Daftary-Kapur et al. on Measuring Knowledge of the Insanity Defense: Scale Construction and Validation

Dr. Tarika Daftary-Kapur of the Vera Institute of Justice, and colleagues, have published Measuring Knowledge of the Insanity Defense: Scale Construction and Validation, forthcoming in Behavioral Sciences and the Law. Here is the abstract:

Given the influence of social conformity and prejudice, defendants pleading not guilty by reason of insanity face the significant challenges of securing fair and impartial juries. Attitudes and knowledge of the insanity defense are factors that may influence levels of impartiality. In the light of this, we set out to develop a scale to examine knowledge levels of the insanity defense and their influence on decision-making. Two studies were conducted to construct a scale designed to assess laypersons’ knowledge of the insanity defense. Items measuring knowledge of the insanity defense were based on Perlin’s (1995) insanity defense myths. The first study identified particular items in need of revision and subscales that required the development of additional items in order to improve reliability and construct validity in the second study. The second study used the revised scale, demonstrating improved validity and reliability. The scale also had acceptable predictive validity with reference to insanity defense verdicts.

Robbennolt on Apologies and Legal Negotiation

Professor Jennifer K. Robbennolt of the University of Illinois College of Law will publish an overview of her empirical research on the effect of apologies on legal negotiation, in an upcoming issue of Court Review, according to a University of Illinois press release (2 June 2010).

According to Professor Robbennolt, the Court Review article will discuss the following, previously published articles:

• Jennifer K. Robbennolt, Attorneys, Apologies, and Settlement Negotiations, 13 Harvard Negotiation Law Review 349 (2008) (Issue No. 2, pages 349-398) (click here for full text preprint).
  

  Abstract: Empirical researchers have begun to explore the influence of apologies on litigant decision making. This research has found that the effects of apologies on decision making are complex, but that apologies generally influence claimants’ perceptions, judgments, and decisions in ways that are likely to make settlement more likely – for example, altering perceptions of the dispute and the disputants, decreasing negative emotion, improving expectations about the future conduct and relationship of the parties, changing negotiation aspirations and fairness judgments, and increasing willingness to accept an offer of settlement.
  Legal negotiation, however, is often characterized by the involvement of attorneys in the negotiation process. There are reasons to anticipate that attorneys may respond differently to apologies than do their clients. Attorneys as agents occupy qualitatively different roles in the process than do their clients and may have an orientation toward analytical thinking and legal rules that influences their understanding of the implications of apologies. This paper empirically explores how attorneys respond to apologies offered in litigation as they advise claimants about settlement, and compares the reactions of attorneys to those of claimants. While attorneys understand the information conveyed by apologies in ways that are strikingly similar to claimants, attorneys’ judgments about settlement when apologies are offered diverge from those of claimants.

• Jennifer K. Robbennolt, Apologies and Settlement Levers, 3 Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 333 (2006) (Issue No. 2, pages 333-373) (click here for full text preprint).
  

  Abstract: This study uses experimental methods to explore the role of apologies in legal settlement negotiation. Specifically, the study examines the influences of apologies on disputants’ perceptions, and the effects of apologies on a number of judgments that influence negotiation outcomes—settlement levers such as reservation, aspirations, and judgments of fair settlement amounts. Five-hundred-fifty-six participants were asked to take the role of potential plaintiffs, to provide their reactions to an experimental scenario, and to indicate the values they would set for each settlement lever. The nature of the communication with the offender and the description of the evidentiary rule governing the admissibility of the offender’s statement were manipulated. The data suggest that apologies can promote settlement by altering the injured parties’ perceptions of the situation and the offender so as to make them more amenable to settlement discussions and by altering the values of the injured parties’ settlement levers in ways that are likely to increase the chances of settlement. The results suggest further, however, that the nature of the apology itself, as well as the factual circumstances surrounding the incident, may play important roles in how apologies are understood.

• Jennifer K. Robbennolt, Apologies and Legal Settlement: An Empirical Examination, 102 Michigan Law Review 460 (2003) (Issue No. 3, pages 460-516) (click here for full text preprint).
  

  Abstract: The conventional wisdom has been that U.S. legal culture discourages apologies. Defendants worry that apologies will be admissible at trial and interpreted as admissions of responsibility. In recent years, however, legal scholars have debated the merits of encouraging parties to apologize. Proponents of apologies claim that apologies will avert lawsuits and promote settlement. Consistent with this view, legislatures in several states have enacted statutes that make certain apologies inadmissible. In addition, some have argued that defendants might craft their apologies to better insulate them from legal liability (e.g., offering a mere expression of sympathy) in order to reap the benefits of apologizing while minimizing the risks. On the other side, however, critics of these so-called safe apologies have argued that apologies that avoid the legal consequences of apologizing are devoid of moral content and likely ineffectual. Much of this debate, however, has occurred in the absence of sound empirical data.
  The article reports the findings of two experimental studies in which participants were asked to read a vignette describing an accident, to take on the role of the injured party, to indicate whether or not they were likely to accept a settlement offer from the other party, and to respond to a series of questions about the situation.
  In the first study, a full, responsibility accepting, apology increased the likelihood that the offer would be accepted. In contrast, a partial, sympathy expressing, apology increased participants’ uncertainty about whether or not to accept the offer. In addition, a full apology (but not a partial apology) resulted in more positive ratings of numerous variables that are thought to underlie the settlement decision. These underlying judgments provided the mechanism by which apologies influenced settlement decisions. Importantly for the debate over evidentiary protection for apologies, the nature of the applicable evidentiary rule did not influence the apologies’ effect on settlement decisions nor did these rules influence participants’ perceptions of the situation or the offender.
  Consistent with the results of the first study, the second study found that apologies influenced participants’ attributions and perceptions of the situation and the offender. Overall, full apologies improved the participants’ perceptions of the situation and the offender, while partial apologies did little to alter such perceptions. There were patterns in the data suggesting both that partial apologies may negatively impact perceptions where responsibility is relatively clear or where the injury is more severe and that partial apologies may positively impact perceptions where responsibility is relatively less clear or where the injury is relatively minor. In addition, and again consistent with the results of the first study, this study provided no evidence that the nature of the applicable evidentiary rule will influence participants’ perceptions of the situation, the offender, or the apology.
  These findings provide some guidance for policymakers and litigants or potential litigants with difficult decisions to make about the appropriate evidentiary protection for apologies, whether to offer an apology to an opposing party in civil litigation, and how to respond to an apology so offered.

Thanks to Professor Robbennolt for providing links to abstracts and preprints.

Ratcliff et al. on The Hidden Consequences of Racial Salience in Videotaped Interrogations and Confessions

Professor Jennifer J. Ratcliff of The State University of New York, College at Brockport, Department of Psychology, and colleagues, have published The Hidden Consequences of Racial Salience in Videotaped Interrogations and Confessions, 16 Psychology, Public Policy, and Law No. 2, pages 200-218 (2010). Here is the abstract:

Evaluations of videotaped criminal confessions can be influenced by the camera perspective taken during recording. Interrogations and confessions recorded with the camera directing observers’ visual attention onto the suspect lead to biased judgments of the suspect. Although a camera perspective that directs visual attention onto the suspect and interrogator equally appears to promote unbiased judgments, investigations to date have relied on videotapes that depict only Caucasian suspects and interrogators. We examined the possibility that even equal-focus videotapes may become problematic when the suspect is a minority (e.g., Chinese American or African American) and the interrogator is Caucasian. That is, to the extent that Caucasian observers are inclined to direct more of their attention onto minorities, an effect documented previously, we expected biased judgments of the suspect to also occur in equal-focus videotapes. Three experiments provided evidence of this racial salience bias. Implications are discussed, including a practical way of avoiding the bias.

Connolly et al. on Judicial Decision Making in Child Sexual Abuse Cases in Canada: A Study of Assessments of Credibility

Professor Deborah A. Connolly of the Simon Fraser University Department of Psychology, Professor Heather L. Price of the University of Regina Faculty of Arts, and Heidi M. Gordon of the University of Toronto Department of Human Development and Applied Psychology, have published Judicial Decision Making in Timely and Delayed Prosecutions of Child Sexual Abuse in Canada: A Study of Honesty and Cognitive Ability in Assessments of Credibility, 16 Psychology, Public Policy, and Law No. 2, pages 177-199 (2010). Here is the abstract:

Child sexual abuse is an alarmingly common criminal offense. Whether prosecutions occur shortly after the alleged offense or after a lengthy delay, complainant credibility is often the central issue at trial. In both law and in psychology, credibility is said to be a function of two relatively distinct factors: honesty and cognitive ability. Complainant age informs evaluations of both such that younger children are seen as more honest but less cognitively competent than older children and adults. When a complainant describes a recent event, current age may be used to assess honesty and cognitive ability. However, when a complainant describes an event that occurred in the distant past, we argue that current age is most informative in evaluations of honesty, whereas age at the time of the alleged offense should inform evaluations of cognitive ability. In this research, we analyzed judicial assessments of complainants’ credibility in 52 timely (child complainant) and 49 delayed (adult complainant) criminal prosecutions of child sexual abuse. Judicial comments concerning cognitive ability suggest that adults were viewed more positively than children, despite the fact that all complainants were children when the alleged offense occurred. As expected, comments related to honesty suggested that children were seen to be more honest than adults unless they had been exposed to suggestive influences.

Goodman-Delahunty et al. on Lawyers’ Ability to Predict Case Outcomes

Professor Jane Goodman-Delahunty of Charles Sturt University Australian Graduate School of Policing, and colleagues, have published Insightful or Wishful: Lawyers’ Ability to Predict Case Outcomes, 16 Psychology, Public Policy, and Law No. 2, pages 133-157 (2010). Here is the abstract:

Lawyers’ litigation forecasts play an integral role in the justice system. In the course of litigation, lawyers constantly make strategic decisions and/or advise their clients on the basis of their perceptions and predictions of case outcomes. The study investigated the realism in predictions by a sample of attorneys (n
481) across the United States who specified a minimum goal to achieve in a case set for trial. They estimated their chances of meeting this goal by providing a confidence estimate. After the cases were resolved, case outcomes were compared with the predictions. Overall, lawyers were overconfident in their predictions, and calibration did not increase with years of legal experience. Female lawyers were slightly better calibrated than their male counterparts and showed evidence of less overconfidence. In an attempt to reduce overconfidence, some lawyers were asked to generate reasons why they might not achieve their stated goals. This manipulation did not improve calibration.

Click here for a University of California Irvine press release about the paper, featuring comments from Professor Elizabeth F. Loftus of the University of California Irvine School of Law, one of the co-authors of the paper.

HT ABA Journal.

Smith on Identifying and Measuring Juror Bias About Forensic Science Evidence

Lisa L. Smith, BSc., MSc., MFSSoc., of the University of Leicester School of Psychology presented a paper entitled Identifying and Measuring Juror Bias About Forensic Science Evidence, at Jury Research Symposium 2010, held 25-26 March 2010 in Glasgow, Scotland, UK.

Click here for the slides accompanying the paper.

Here is the abstract:

This series of mock jury studies has investigated the process of juror decision making about the probative value of different types of forensic evidence (e.g. DNA, fingerprints, etc.). The findings suggest that there is widespread agreement among mock jurors about the usefulness of forensic evidence that has very high probative value[;] however evidence of a weak or moderate standard produces significant disagreement among jurors regarding its usefulness in determining the guilt of a defendant. An Interactionist model of jury decision making would predict that in cases where evidence is weak or ambiguous individual jurors’ pre‐trial beliefs and opinions will have a greater impact on the decision making process. The Forensic Evidence Evaluation Bias Scale (FEEBS) was developed to determine whether a pre‐trial bias related to perceptions of forensic evidence could be measured, and the scale’s ability to predict judgments about evidence and verdicts was investigated. A factor analysis of the FEEBS revealed that participants could be conceptualised as having either a pro‐prosecution or pro‐defence bias concerning forensic evidence. This presentation will discuss these findings in relation to the recent attention given to anecdotal reports of a ‘CSI Effect’ as well as the implications that this bias has on verdict decisions both within the current research and in the courtroom.

For the full text of the paper, please contact the author.

Rotenberg on A Trust in Legal Professionals Scale: Implications for Jury Functioning

Professor Kenneth J. Rotenberg of Keele University School of Psychology presented a paper entitled A Trust in Legal Professionals Scale: Implications for Jury Functioning, at Jury Research Symposium 2010, held 25-26 March 2010 in Glasgow, Scotland, UK.

Click here for the slides accompanying the paper.

[Please note that in this research, "legal professionals" is defined to include juries.]

Here is the abstract:

The purpose of the research was to develop a Trust in Legal Professionals Scale and examine its relation to jury functioning. One hundred and 36 (80 females and 56 males) undergraduates and 199 (34 females and 165 males) Royal Air Force recruits in Study 1 completed the 9‐item Trust in Legal Professionals scale (TLPS), Rotter’s (1967) Interpersonal Trust Scale (RITS), and cooperating with legal professionals scale (CLPS). In Study 2, 72 undergraduates (48 females and 25 males) completed the TLPS and participated as jurors in mock trials. As expected, Study 1 showed that the TLPS was composed of the three factors (honesty, emotional, and reliability) and was positively correlated with RITS and with CLPS independently. In Study 2, it was found that gender moderated the relation between the TLPS jury subscale and the participants’ perceptions of fairness, perceived confidence and dominance of jury deliberations. Males who held high trust beliefs in juries tended to dominate jury deliberations whereas females who held high trust beliefs in juries tended to show dependency in jury deliberations The TLPS demonstrated reliability and validity and the TLPS jury subscale was associated with jury functioning.

For the full text of the paper, please contact the author.