Perception versus reality: Investigating the impact of talkativeness on children’s credibility and reliability

<p>Does how much children say predict how credible they are as a witness? Children’s talkativeness can be easily observed by jurors, but we know very little about how it affects judgements of children’s credibility. The present research investigates the effect of talkativeness on juror perceptions and children’s actual testimony. In Study 1 participants rated six transcripts from low/high talkative 5-, 8-, or 12-year old children. Results showed that mock jurors rated high-talkative children more favourably than low-talkative children and older children were rated more favourably than younger children. In Study 2 we analysed transcripts of memory interviews from 5-, 8-, and 12-year-old children. Talkativeness was not associated with accuracy, but child age was. Talkativeness and child age were both associated with the amount of information recalled. This research shows that talkativeness of child witnesses not only influences juror perceptions but also is an indication of the amount of information that children recall in a memory interview. It is not just what a child says, but also how they say it that matters.</p>

Perception versus reality: Investigating the impact of talkativeness on children’s credibility and reliability

<p>Does how much children say predict how credible they are as a witness? Children’s talkativeness can be easily observed by jurors, but we know very little about how it affects judgements of children’s credibility. The present research investigates the effect of talkativeness on juror perceptions and children’s actual testimony. In Study 1 participants rated six transcripts from low/high talkative 5-, 8-, or 12-year old children. Results showed that mock jurors rated high-talkative children more favourably than low-talkative children and older children were rated more favourably than younger children. In Study 2 we analysed transcripts of memory interviews from 5-, 8-, and 12-year-old children. Talkativeness was not associated with accuracy, but child age was. Talkativeness and child age were both associated with the amount of information recalled. This research shows that talkativeness of child witnesses not only influences juror perceptions but also is an indication of the amount of information that children recall in a memory interview. It is not just what a child says, but also how they say it that matters.</p>

Strength Versus Sensitivity: The Impact of Attorney Gender on Juror Perceptions and Trial Outcomes in a Rape Case

We examined the impact of attorney gender on perceptions of a criminal rape trial. Community members ( N = 208) read a trial summary describing a rape scenario in which the gender of the prosecuting and defense attorney were manipulated. The results revealed indirect effects of prosecuting and defense attorney gender on verdict through perceptions of characteristics related to attorney competency. Qualitative analyses further showed that the terms “strength” and “powerful” were central to juror perceptions of male attorneys, whereas the terms “sensitive” and “sympathy” were central when the attorneys were female.

Memory and Credibility Perceptions of Alcohol and Other Drug Intoxicated Witnesses and Victims of Crime

Research into juror perceptions regarding the impact of intoxication on eyewitness memory and credibility is scarce for substances other than alcohol. However, jurors are frequently told to draw on their personal beliefs and experience with intoxicating substances to infer their impact on the case. It is therefore important to investigate laypeople’s perceptions regarding witness and victim intoxication across a range of substances, and whether these perceptions are associated with substance familiarity. Participants (n = 470) completed a survey assessing familiarity and use of different substances, as well as perceptions regarding effects on the memory and credibility of intoxicated victims and witnesses. While participants most frequently reported believing that alcohol, hallucinogens, and polysubstance use of alcohol and cannabis have large negative effects on memory, they more frequently reported that they do not know the extent to which cannabis and cocaine affect memory. In addition, attitudes were found to vary based on substance familiarity. Differences with respect to the perceived impact on memory and credibility of various substances have relevance to court proceedings, particularly in terms of voir dire procedures and whether an expert witness may be required to educate the court on the impacts of different forms of intoxication.