Literature DB >> 35756706

Perceptions of familiar and unfamiliar ear- and eyewitnesses.

Madison B Harvey1, Kaila C Bruer2, Heather L Price3.   

Abstract

A witness's relationship with a defendant is frequently discussed in criminal trials, yet investigations into perceptions of this relationship have been scarce. Further, an exploration of witnesses other than eyewitnesses has been missing from the literature. The present studies explored how witness type and familiarity with a defendant impact the perceived credibility of a witness. In Study 1, a familiar earwitness was perceived as more credible and honest than a stranger earwitness but the same was not found for eyewitnesses. Results from Study 2 suggest an eyewitness was seen as more credible and believable than an earwitness, and that a familiar witness was seen as more reliable than a stranger, but not than an acquaintance. There was no impact of familiarity or witness type on legal decisions. The present studies indicate that the prior definitions of familiarity might only capture a restricted range of potentially familiar relations.
© 2021 The Australian and New Zealand Association of Psychiatry, Psychology and Law.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Earwitness; eyewitness; familiarity; perceived credibility; witness type

Year:  2021        PMID: 35756706      PMCID: PMC9225713          DOI: 10.1080/13218719.2021.1910588

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychiatr Psychol Law        ISSN: 1321-8719


  8 in total

Review 1.  Familiar and unfamiliar face recognition: a review.

Authors:  Robert A Johnston; Andrew J Edmonds
Journal:  Memory       Date:  2009-07

2.  Effects of lighting on the perception of facial surfaces.

Authors:  H Hill; V Bruce
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1996-08       Impact factor: 3.332

3.  Mock juror sampling issues in jury simulation research: A meta-analysis.

Authors:  Brian H Bornstein; Jonathan M Golding; Jeffrey Neuschatz; Christopher Kimbrough; Krystia Reed; Casey Magyarics; Katherine Luecht
Journal:  Law Hum Behav       Date:  2016-10-20

4.  INTERPOL survey of the use of speaker identification by law enforcement agencies.

Authors:  Geoffrey Stewart Morrison; Farhan Hyder Sahito; Gaëlle Jardine; Djordje Djokic; Sophie Clavet; Sabine Berghs; Caroline Goemans Dorny
Journal:  Forensic Sci Int       Date:  2016-04-01       Impact factor: 2.395

5.  Intonation and speaker identification.

Authors:  E Abberton; A J Fourcin
Journal:  Lang Speech       Date:  1978 Oct-Dec       Impact factor: 1.500

6.  Changing faces: visual and non-visual coding processes in face recognition.

Authors:  V Bruce
Journal:  Br J Psychol       Date:  1982-02

Review 7.  Eyewitness identification across the life span: A meta-analysis of age differences.

Authors:  Ryan J Fitzgerald; Heather L Price
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  2015-05-25       Impact factor: 17.737

8.  Do Student Samples Provide an Accurate Estimate of the General Public?

Authors:  Paul H P Hanel; Katia C Vione
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-12-21       Impact factor: 3.240

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.