scholarly journals Expert Witness Credibility as a Function of Eye Contact Behavior and Gender

2008 ◽  
Vol 35 (12) ◽  
pp. 1515-1526 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tess M.S. Neal ◽  
Stanley L. Brodsky
2014 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert J. Cramer ◽  
Caroline Titcomb Parrott ◽  
Brett O. Gardner ◽  
Caroline H. Stroud ◽  
Marcus T. Boccaccini ◽  
...  

The present study integrates mock juror perceptions of witness credibility (i.e., Confidence, Trustworthiness, Likeability, and Knowledge), efficacy (i.e., Poise and Communication Style), and personality (i.e., the Five-Factor Model) of an expert witness in order to evaluate meta-factors or simplified structures of witness persuasion. Across two studies, mock jurors watched videotaped expert testimony about risk for future violence during the sentencing phase of a capital murder trial. Participants subsequently rated the expert on measures of credibility, efficacy, and personality, as well as various legal decisions. Study I (n = 314) factor-analytic results yielded two meta-factors of expert witness testimony, with a confirmed structure in Study II (n = 324): Character and Efficacy. Character was comprised of all four credibility subscales, as well as Neuroticism, Openness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness. Efficacy was represented by Poise, Communication Style, Confidence (which cross-loaded), and Extraversion. In Study II structural equation modeling also showed that perceived Character, but not Efficacy, was associated with sentencing recommendations directly and indirectly via attribution of perpetrator blame. Two meta-factors offering evaluation of character traits and behavioral performance appear supported by the present study. Implications for expert witness credibility and blame attributions theories are discussed.


2018 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 161-181 ◽  
Author(s):  
Candida Leigh Saunders

According to the conventional wisdom, rape is generally a case of ‘one person’s word against another’s’ and, in the absence of independent evidence, judgements regarding the truth or otherwise of an allegation are influenced by ‘rape myths’ and gender stereotypes. The meaning of ‘one person’s word against another’s’, however, and the extent to which it accurately describes the evidence in most rape cases, or usefully explains case disposal, are largely unexplored. This article subjects the conventional wisdom of rape as ‘one person’s word against another’s’, and the implicit claims and assumptions underpinning it, to close critical scrutiny. Drawing on original empirical data, I argue that the concept of ‘one person’s word against another’s’ is vague, ambiguous and uninformative. It tells us virtually nothing about what rape cases look like evidentially, still less about case progression, and presents a partial and misleading view of English criminal proceedings and the process of proof. If we are to better understand attrition in rape cases, we need to meaningfully engage with the contentious issue of witness credibility and reliability—not only in the absence of independent evidence that supports or corroborates a witness’s account, but in the presence of evidence that undermines or contradicts it.


2015 ◽  
Vol 41 ◽  
pp. 58-66 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hayley J. Wechsler ◽  
Andre Kehn ◽  
Richard A. Wise ◽  
Robert J. Cramer

2010 ◽  
Vol 28 (6) ◽  
pp. 892-907 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stanley L. Brodsky ◽  
Michael P. Griffin ◽  
Robert J. Cramer

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sophie N. Lanthier ◽  
Michelle Jarick ◽  
Mona J. H. Zhu ◽  
Crystal S. J. Byun ◽  
Alan Kingstone
Keyword(s):  

2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 226-237 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Hamel

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore the role of gender in intimate partner violence (IPV) and, based upon the author’s experience as an expert witness, 25 years of clinical experience working with IPV perpetrators and victims, and a review of the relevant scholarly literature, provide judges, attorneys, mental health professionals and expert court witness suggestions for the adjudication of cases involving IPV in homicide and other cases. Design/methodology/approach The author reviewed the extant general domestic violence research literature, depending largely on results from findings from the Partner Abuse State of Knowledge Project, a series of 17 literature review published in five issues of the peer-reviewed journal, Partner Ause. Other relevant research articles were found via a search of the PschInfo database, using the keywords “intimate partner homicides,” “domestic violence homicides,” “intimate partner homicides and gender” and “domestic violence homicides and gender.” Findings The judicial response to IPV perpetration has been limited by common misconceptions, among them the confusion between most forms of IPV, which are primarily bi-directional and less consequential and battering, which involves more serious assaults and is typically motivated out of a desire to dominate and control one’s partner. Another misconception is that women are much more likely than men to perpetrate IPV in self-defense or to express emotion. On the other hand, there is no question that female victims are much more likely to experience severe physical injuries, and that women account for approximately three-quarters of homicide victims. Practical implications These include the following: this concise review of IPV research provides a clearer understanding of IPV, useful for anyone working in the field. Mental health professionals working with IPV perpetrators, as well as victims, can draw from this research best practice suggestions in working with more problematic cases. The paper should be especially useful to anyone involved in the adjudication of IPV cases, including lethal cases. In particular, prosecutors and attorneys working for the defense are given suggestions on how to obtain more reliable research data, choose more fruitful questions for their clients, and better conceptualize a case overall. Originality/value This paper presents a more nuanced and evidence-based conceptualization of serious and lethal IPV, drawing on a broad research base not generally available to members of the legal profession.


The present study examines the role of scientific and photographic evidence on mock jurors’ perceptions of witness credibility and whether adding such details to an expert witness’s slideshow increases the credibility of that testimony. To assess credibility, 128 undergraduate students were divided across 4 research groups. The students reviewed narrated slideshows of Human Factors expert witness testimony and used the Witness Credibility Scale (Brodsky et al., 2010) to quantify the credibility of that testimony. We hypothesized that adding scientific data and photographs would lead to an increase in perceived credibility. Final results indicate that scientific data did generate a statistically significant increase in perceived credibility, specifically concerning the knowledge and trustworthiness of the witness. Conversely, the inclusion of images did not produce a statistically significant effect on perceived credibility. The results of this study demonstrate that including specialized scientific information in an expert witness’s testimony affects jurors’ overall perception of credibility of the witness.


Assessment ◽  
1997 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 351-357 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lori Goldfarb Plante ◽  
Thomas G. Plante ◽  
Philip Rahm ◽  
John T. Brentar ◽  
Charles Couchman

This study examined the impact of eye contact versus no eye contact during the administration of the Digit Span subtest of the third edition of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC-III) to a clinical population of children. Forty-three children, ranging in age from 6 to 16 years, participated in the study, representing a range of attentional, emotional, and learning diagnoses. Participants were administered the Digit Span subtest once with and once without the examiner offering eye contact, in counterbalanced order. Results indicated that respondents generally avoided making eye contact with the examiner, even during the eye contact condition, suggesting that eye contact is at least not preferred during recall of Digit Span numbers. Performance was not impacted by the eye contact behavior of the examiner as respondents generally avoided eye contact. Implications for examiner eye contact behavior during administration of the Digit Span to a clinical population of children are discussed.


2017 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jackie Kuehl ◽  
Kenitra Foote ◽  
Justin Ortt ◽  
Allison Larson

The topic of reactive body language and eye contact between strangers is necessary research because it differs from typical face to face relational interactions. Stranger interactions among genders and one’s eye contact are often avoided by most people, whether it’s due to the setting, awkward feelings, or one’s vulnerability. It seems like there is a common communicative trend found in Late Generation Y and Early Generation Z, is avoiding eye contact with strangers when outside of one’s comfort zone (Nemko, 2016). The lack of stranger interaction involving eye contact and its effect on society is considered in this study. The researchers chose to investigate how eye contact between strangers differs in today’s society. Specifically, the researchers explored the effect of eye contact in different settings and compared that with race and gender. Participants of the study hailed from a private, faith-based institution of higher education in an urban area in the Midwestern United States. The study thoroughly addressed the relationship between how one averts their eyes because there is an uncomfortable feeling. The lack of eye contact can show a lack of empathy towards the other person; they may go through their day feeling as if they don’t exist.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document