Search

Judgments of criminal culpability often are influenced by factors unrelated to case content, such as the emotionality of the victim and the personality of the judge. In the current study, we investigated the relationship between psychopathic traits (high/low) and information processing modes (experiential vs. rational) in a group of mock jurors (N = 383) asked to judge a “he said, she said” ambiguous case of sexual assault that varied according to both victim and defendant emotionality (high/low). The results demonstrated that victim and defendant emotionality was critical in determining case outcomes, which interacted with the processing style that participants utilized more. Specifically, experiential processors were more punitive towards the defendant when the defendant displayed low levels of emotion relative to high emotionality, whereas rational processors were slightly more punitive when high levels of emotion were being displayed. Psychopathic traits had no influence on ratings of veracity/credibility of the victim and defendant, or on overall guilt determinations and severity of sentencing. However, participants high in psychopathic traits believed that the alleged victim was making a false allegation more often when she was less emotional, and they were less punitive towards the false allegation than individuals low in psychopathic traits. These findings have important implications concerning how cases of sexual assault are interpreted in court, and extra-legal factors that may alter case outcomes.

We conducted a prospective study with individuals who first described their memories of both a recent traumatic and a highly positive emotional experience in 2001–2002. Of the 49 subjects interviewed after 3 months, 29 were re-interviewed after 3.45 to 5.0 years. Subjects answered questions from a 12-item consistency questionnaire (maximum possible score of 36), rated the qualities of their memories, and completed questionnaires concerning the impact of the trauma. Results indicated that traumatic memories (including memories for violence) were highly consistent (M = 28.04) over time relative to positive memories (M = 17.75). Ratings of vividness, overall quality, and sensory components declined markedly for positive memories but remained virtually unchanged for traumatic memories. The severity of traumatic symptoms diminished over time and was unrelated to memory consistency. These findings contribute to understanding of the impact of trauma on memory over long periods.

We conducted a prospective study with individuals who first described their memories of both a recent traumatic and a highly positive emotional experience in 2001-2002. Of the 49 subjects interviewed after 3 months, 29 were re-interviewed after 3.45 to 5.0 years. Subjects answered questions from a 12-item consistency questionnaire (maximum possible score of 36), rated the qualities of their memories, and completed questionnaires concerning the impact of the trauma. Results indicated that traumatic memories (including memories for violence) were highly consistent (M= 28.04) over time relative to positive memories (M= 17.75). Ratings of vividness, overall quality, and sensory components declined markedly for positive memories but remained virtually unchanged for traumatic memories. The severity of traumatic symptoms diminished over time and was unrelated to memory consistency. These findings contribute to understanding of the impact of trauma on memory over long periods.

Eyewitness memory for the perpetrator or circumstances of a crime is generally worse for scenarios involving weapons compared to those involving non-weapon objects—a pattern known for decades as the weapon focus effect. But despite ample support from laboratory experiments and recognition by experts, testimony concerning weapon focus is rarely admissible in court. The present article summarizes a selection of key findings within the weapon focus literature and considers whether the effect warrants consideration by the criminal justice system at this time. We conclude that weapon focus is sufficiently robust and uncontroversial to guide practice so long as consideration is given to the circumstances surrounding the criminal event with a particular emphasis on witness expectation.