|
|
|
|
LEADER |
00000naa a22000002 4500 |
001 |
1735993247 |
003 |
DE-627 |
005 |
20201020082527.0 |
007 |
cr uuu---uuuuu |
008 |
201020s2017 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c |
024 |
7 |
|
|a 10.1080/1068316X.2017.1284220
|2 doi
|
035 |
|
|
|a (DE-627)1735993247
|
035 |
|
|
|a (DE-599)KXP1735993247
|
040 |
|
|
|a DE-627
|b ger
|c DE-627
|e rda
|
041 |
|
|
|a eng
|
100 |
1 |
|
|a Dodson, Chad S.
|e VerfasserIn
|4 aut
|
245 |
1 |
0 |
|a Judging guilt and accuracy
|b highly confident eyewitnesses are discounted when they provide featural justifications
|
264 |
|
1 |
|c 2017
|
336 |
|
|
|a Text
|b txt
|2 rdacontent
|
337 |
|
|
|a Computermedien
|b c
|2 rdamedia
|
338 |
|
|
|a Online-Ressource
|b cr
|2 rdacarrier
|
520 |
|
|
|a Jurors are heavily swayed by confident eyewitnesses. Are they also influenced by how eyewitnesses justify their level of confidence? Here we document a counter-intuitive effect: when eyewitnesses identified a suspect from a lineup with absolute certainty (‘I am completely confident’) and justified their confidence by referring to a visible feature of the accused (‘I remember his nose’), participants judged the suspect as less likely to be guilty than when eyewitnesses identified a suspect with absolute certainty but offered an unobservable justification (‘I would never forget him’) or no justification at all. Moreover, people perceive an eyewitness’s identification as nearly 25% less accurate when the eyewitness has provided a featural justification than an unobservable justification or simply no justification. Even when an eyewitness’s level of confidence is clear because s/he has expressed it numerically (e.g. ‘I am 100% certain’) participants perceive eyewitnesses as not credible (i.e. inaccurate) when the eyewitness has provided a featural justification. However, the effect of featural justifications - relative to a confidence statement only - is maximal when there is an accompanying lineup of faces, moderate when there is a single face and minimal when there is no face at all. The results support our Perceived-Diagnosticity account.
|
650 |
|
4 |
|a Eyewitness identification
|
650 |
|
4 |
|a Confidence
|
650 |
|
4 |
|a Credibility
|
650 |
|
4 |
|a Eyewitness testimony
|
650 |
|
4 |
|a Juror decision-making
|
700 |
1 |
|
|a Dobolyi, David G.
|e VerfasserIn
|4 aut
|
773 |
0 |
8 |
|i Enthalten in
|t Psychology, crime & law
|d Getzville, NY : HeinOnline, 1994
|g 23(2017), 5, Seite 487-508
|h Online-Ressource
|w (DE-627)341903574
|w (DE-600)2070124-X
|w (DE-576)27234995X
|x 1477-2744
|7 nnns
|
773 |
1 |
8 |
|g volume:23
|g year:2017
|g number:5
|g pages:487-508
|
856 |
4 |
0 |
|u http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2017.1284220
|x Resolving-System
|3 Volltext
|
936 |
u |
w |
|d 23
|j 2017
|e 5
|h 487-508
|
951 |
|
|
|a AR
|
ELC |
|
|
|a 1
|
LOK |
|
|
|0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500
|
LOK |
|
|
|0 001 3782920929
|
LOK |
|
|
|0 003 DE-627
|
LOK |
|
|
|0 004 1735993247
|
LOK |
|
|
|0 005 20201020082527
|
LOK |
|
|
|0 008 201020||||||||||||||||ger|||||||
|
LOK |
|
|
|0 040
|a DE-21-110
|c DE-627
|d DE-21-110
|
LOK |
|
|
|0 092
|o n
|
LOK |
|
|
|0 852
|a DE-21-110
|
LOK |
|
|
|0 852 1
|9 00
|
LOK |
|
|
|0 935
|a krub
|a krzo
|
ORI |
|
|
|a SA-MARC-krimdoka001.raw
|