The Experts below are selected from a list of 546636 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Patrick J Munhall - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
attributional complexity and the camera perspective bias in videotaped confessions
Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 2005Co-Authors: Daniel G Lassiter, Patrick J Munhall, Ian P Berger, Paul E Weiland, Ian M Handley, Andrew L GeersAbstract:Prior research has established that simply altering the perspective from which a videotaped confession is recorded influences judgments of the confession's Voluntariness and the suspect's guilt. This study examined whether, when evaluating a videotaped confession, a higher degree of attributional complexity would buffer people from the contaminating effects of camera perspective. We found that although people high and low in attributional complexity differed in their overall verdicts and Voluntariness assessments, they were comparably swayed by the camera's perspective. That is, consistent with prior demonstrations of the camera perspective bias, the proportion of guilty verdicts and the proportion assessing the confession was voluntary were both significantly greater when the camera focused on the suspect rather than focused equally on the suspect and the interrogator. Theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed.
-
videotaped interrogations and confessions a simple change in camera perspective alters verdicts in simulated trials
Journal of Applied Psychology, 2002Co-Authors: Daniel G Lassiter, Paul E Weiland, Ian M Handley, Andrew L Geers, Patrick J MunhallAbstract:Prior research has indicated that altering the perspective from which a videotaped confession is recorded influences assessments of the confession’s Voluntariness. The authors examined whether this camera perspective bias persists in more ecologically valid contexts. In Study 1, neither a realistic videotaped trial simulation nor potentially corrective judicial instruction was sufficient to mitigate the prejudicial effect of camera perspective on mock jurors’ assessments of Voluntariness or on their all-important final verdicts. Study 2 suggests that perhaps the best camera perspective to use is one that focuses trial fact finders’ attention on the interrogator, as this particular vantage point may facilitate decision makers’ capacity to detect coercive influences, which in turn could, in some cases, improve assessments of the confession’s reliability. In criminal trials, fact finders (judges and jurors) make decisions based on an evaluation of the evidence presented. The kind of evidence that possibly has the greatest impact on the decision making of these trial fact finders is a defendant’s prior admission of guilt. This view of confessions as highly incriminating is held not only by legal scholars and practitioners but also by the general public (Kassin & Neumann, 1997; McCormick, 1972; Wigmore,
Daniel G Lassiter - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
evidence of the camera perspective bias in authentic videotaped interrogations implications for emerging reform in the criminal justice system
Legal and Criminological Psychology, 2009Co-Authors: Daniel G Lassiter, Lezlee J Ware, Jonathan J Ratcliff, Clinton R IrvinAbstract:Objective. Numerous previous experiments have established the existence of a camera perspective bias in evaluations of videotaped interrogations/confessions: videotapes that make the suspect more visually conspicuous than the interrogator(s) by virtue of focusing the camera on the suspect yield assessments of Voluntariness and judgments of guilt that are greater than those found when alternative presentation formats are used. One limitation of this body of research is that all the interrogations/confessions used to date were simulations; therefore, no evidence currently demonstrates that the camera perspective bias importantly generalizes to authentic videotapes recorded by police and depicting actual suspects and interrogators. Two experiments addressed this issue. Methods. Experiment 1 compared judgments of Voluntariness based on viewing two authentic videotaped confessions – one recorded with the camera focused on the suspect, the other with the camera focused equally on the suspect and interrogator – with those based on listening only to the audio or reading only a transcript. Experiment 2 compared judgments of Voluntariness and guilt of an originally equal-focus videotaped confession that was edited to produce suspect-focus and interrogator-focus versions. Results. In Experiment 1, participants judged the videotape version of the confession to be more voluntary than either the audio only or transcript versions, but only for the suspect-focus videotape. In Experiment 2, participants viewing the suspect-focus version of the confession (relative to the interrogator-focus version) judged it to be more voluntary and the suspect more likely to be guilty. Conclusion. The present research further strengthens the policy implications of the literature on camera perspective bias by providing evidence that the bias manifests with authentic interrogations/confessions as well as with simulations.
-
attributional complexity and the camera perspective bias in videotaped confessions
Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 2005Co-Authors: Daniel G Lassiter, Patrick J Munhall, Ian P Berger, Paul E Weiland, Ian M Handley, Andrew L GeersAbstract:Prior research has established that simply altering the perspective from which a videotaped confession is recorded influences judgments of the confession's Voluntariness and the suspect's guilt. This study examined whether, when evaluating a videotaped confession, a higher degree of attributional complexity would buffer people from the contaminating effects of camera perspective. We found that although people high and low in attributional complexity differed in their overall verdicts and Voluntariness assessments, they were comparably swayed by the camera's perspective. That is, consistent with prior demonstrations of the camera perspective bias, the proportion of guilty verdicts and the proportion assessing the confession was voluntary were both significantly greater when the camera focused on the suspect rather than focused equally on the suspect and the interrogator. Theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed.
-
videotaped interrogations and confessions a simple change in camera perspective alters verdicts in simulated trials
Journal of Applied Psychology, 2002Co-Authors: Daniel G Lassiter, Paul E Weiland, Ian M Handley, Andrew L Geers, Patrick J MunhallAbstract:Prior research has indicated that altering the perspective from which a videotaped confession is recorded influences assessments of the confession’s Voluntariness. The authors examined whether this camera perspective bias persists in more ecologically valid contexts. In Study 1, neither a realistic videotaped trial simulation nor potentially corrective judicial instruction was sufficient to mitigate the prejudicial effect of camera perspective on mock jurors’ assessments of Voluntariness or on their all-important final verdicts. Study 2 suggests that perhaps the best camera perspective to use is one that focuses trial fact finders’ attention on the interrogator, as this particular vantage point may facilitate decision makers’ capacity to detect coercive influences, which in turn could, in some cases, improve assessments of the confession’s reliability. In criminal trials, fact finders (judges and jurors) make decisions based on an evaluation of the evidence presented. The kind of evidence that possibly has the greatest impact on the decision making of these trial fact finders is a defendant’s prior admission of guilt. This view of confessions as highly incriminating is held not only by legal scholars and practitioners but also by the general public (Kassin & Neumann, 1997; McCormick, 1972; Wigmore,
Maria Hjalmarsson - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
governance and Voluntariness for children in swedish leisure time centres leisure time teachers interpreting their tasks and everyday practice
International Journal of Research, 2013Co-Authors: Maria HjalmarssonAbstract:The aim of this article is to explore and discuss the tension between certain aspects of governance and Voluntariness for children in the context of Swedish leisure-time centres meant for younger school children. The data consists of interviews with leisure-time teachers in five settings. The results show that there appears to be a paradox in that not offering children organized activities may be interpreted as childminding while at the same time the leisure-time teachers emphasize the importance of letting the children choose which activities they wish to be involved in. This may be a question of how the leisure-time teachers interpret and understand the concept of leisure and its consequences in everyday practice. In absence of a task to evaluate the learning outcomes of the children, the leisure-time teachers need to find other ways to describe and show the high quality of the activities offered. Working with carrying out quality reports may be such a means. Keywords: Leisure-time centre, leisure-time teacher, quality, children, Voluntariness, governance, teacher professionalism
Kwangbai Park - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
An Explanation for Camera Perspective Bias in Voluntariness Judgment for Video-Recorded Confession: Suggestion of Cognitive Frame
Law and Human Behavior, 2011Co-Authors: Kwangbai ParkAbstract:Three experiments were conducted to test the hypothesis that difference in Voluntariness judgment for a custodial confession filmed in different camera focuses (“camera perspective bias”) could occur because a particular camera focus conveys a suggestion of a particular cognitive frame. In Experiment 1, 146 juror eligible adults in Korea showed a camera perspective bias in Voluntariness judgment with a simulated confession filmed with two cameras of different focuses, one on the suspect and the other on the detective. In Experiment 2, the same bias in Voluntariness judgment emerged without cameras when the participants were cognitively framed, prior to listening to the audio track of the videos used in Experiment 1, by instructions to make either a Voluntariness judgment for a confession or a coerciveness judgment for an interrogation. In Experiment 3, the camera perspective bias in Voluntariness judgment disappeared when the participants viewing the video focused on the suspect were initially framed to make coerciveness judgment for the interrogation and the participants viewing the video focused on the detective were initially framed to make Voluntariness judgment for the confession. The results in combination indicated that a particular camera focus may convey a suggestion of a particular cognitive frame in which a video-recorded confession/interrogation is initially represented. Some forensic and policy implications were discussed.
Henry J. Steadman - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Enrollment in Mental Health Courts: Voluntariness, Knowingness, and Adjudicative Competence
Law and Human Behavior, 2010Co-Authors: Allison D. Redlich, Steven Hoover, Alicia Summers, Henry J. SteadmanAbstract:Mental health courts (MHCs) are rapidly expanding as a form of diversion from jails and prisons for persons with mental illness charged with crimes. Although intended to be voluntary, little is known about this aspect of the courts. We examined perceptions of Voluntariness, and levels of knowingness and legal competence among 200 newly enrolled clients of MHCs at two courts. Although most clients claimed to have chosen to enroll, at the same time, most claimed not to have been told the court was voluntary or told of the requirements prior to entering. The majority knew the “basics” of the courts, but fewer knew more nuanced information. A minority also were found to have impairments in legal competence. Implications are discussed.
