Search

Alcohol-intoxicated suspects’ confessions are admissible in U.S. courts; however, it is unknown how jurors evaluate such confessions. Study 1 assessed potential jurors’ perceptions of intoxication in interrogative contexts. Many respondents were unaware that questioning intoxicated suspects and presenting subsequent confessions in court are legal, and respondents generally reported they would rely less on intoxicated than sober confessions. In Study 2, potential jurors read a case about a defendant who had confessed or not while sober or intoxicated. Participants who read about an intoxicated defendant perceived the interrogation as more inappropriate and the defendant as more cognitively impaired than did participants who read about a sober defendant, and as a result, they were less likely to convict. Furthermore, intoxicated confessions influenced conviction decisions to a lesser extent than did sober confessions. Findings suggest that investigators might consider abstaining from interrogating intoxicated suspects or else risk jurors finding confessions unconvincing in court.

Best practice eyewitness interviewing mnemonics have not been tested with linguistically diverse samples. Cognitively complex mnemonics may overload non-native speakers’ cognitive resources, which are already engaged in speaking a non-native language. Social facilitation mnemonics may help non-native speakers, who might be hesitant to report details. The current study tested the reverse order mnemonic (cognitively complex) and a set of introductory instructions (social facilitation) compared to control interviews among native and non-native English speakers. Native speakers provided more details than nonnative speakers, particularly in the control interview condition. Both the reverse order and control conditions elicited newly generated details because of repeated questioning. Accuracy rates were comparable across language and interview conditions. Future research should develop an interviewing protocol that is sensitive to the challenges faced by nonnative speakers.

Forensic science is a central component of jurors' decisions in many criminal cases. Nevertheless, research has shown that jurors are not sensitive to violations of testimonial guidelines for expert testimony in court and generally struggle to comprehend and evaluate forensic science testimony. Consequently, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) developed the Uniform Language for Testimony and Reports (ULTR) to standardize the language used in such testimony. The current study created and tested a Forensic Science Informational (FSI) video as an intervention to bolster jurors' understanding of FSI. After reading a case summary, participants were randomly assigned to read and rate five forensic expert testimony violations without any training, or to watch the FSI video before reading and rating each violation. Results revealed that participants with video exposure rated both the expert testimony and the expert themselves lower than those without such exposure, indicating they recognized the violations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is minimal research on metacognition in alcohol-intoxicated participants. Study 1 examined metacognition across sober, intoxicated, and placebo groups, with the intoxicated group's breath alcohol concentration reaching 0.074 g/210 L on average immediately prior to the metacognition task. Participants answered cued recall general knowledge questions and provided confidence ratings and feeling-of-knowing judgments. They then completed a recognition (i.e., multiple choice) version of the same task, indicating an answer and a confidence rating for each question. Findings suggest that metacognitive accuracy generally did not vary across intoxication levels, although the control group's retrospective confidence judgments better discriminated between accurate and inaccurate responses than the alcohol groups in the recognition task. Study 2 surveyed academic psychologists about their expectations regarding the relation between alcohol and metacognition. Study 1's results were counter to their expectations, as respondents generally predicted a relation would be present. We discuss the implications for alcohol and memory.Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: The current set of studies was designed to test a new credibility assessment tool, the Psychologically Based Credibility Assessment Tool (PBCAT). Participants watched lab-generated videos of true and false alibi statements, provided while under varying degrees of cognitive load. Judges either provided a truth/lie judgment only, or also rated 11 behavioral cues on the PBCAT. When stories were told under cognitive load the effectiveness of cues at discriminating truth/deception was enhanced, with targets under higher load judged more accurately. Results regarding the new assessment tool indicate that it is capable of improving deception detection performance, even with minimally trained, nonexpert observers. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]