Search

Experimental eyewitness project on how perceptions of confederates can effect their level of influence on co-witnesses

Cross sectional survey data on mental toughness and self-reported negative affective states during the COVID19 pandemic

Research has highlighted that individuals who are defined as vulnerable come into regular contact with the criminal justice system (Burton et al., 2006; King & Murphy, 2014). Certain vulnerabilities, such as mental disabilities, can impact how the individual is perceived within the criminal justice system (Wainwright & Mojtahedi, 2020). Moreover, these vulnerabilities could impact an individual's ability to participate fully in a trial, affecting their ability to give evidence; therefore, the use of special adaptations or measures within the criminal justice system is imperative to reduce the levels of stress experienced by a witness, while preserving the quality of the evidence they can give (Lindsey, 2019). Therefore, there must be adaptations put in place in order to facilitate a trial.

Criminal investigations often rely upon eyewitnesses to help drive investigations forward and convict offenders. Witnesses can assist investigators by identifying suspects, through identification parades; and by providing detailed accounts about the incident, through their statement. However, research suggests that witnesses will not always produce reliable evidence. Witness inaccuracies can be due to various dispositional and circumstantial factors, however for the purpose of the current discussion, the author focuses on the malleability on the suggestibility of eyewitnesses during co-witness discussions.

Researchers have typically observed the effects of co-witness influence on eyewitness pairs. However, research suggests that individuals are more likely to witness crimes in larger groups. Additionally, there is an abundance of evidence suggesting that social influence is heavily moderated by group size. Therefore, the present study aimed to gain a more accurate understanding of the risks of co-witness influence in relation to unanimity and group size effects. Participants (N=608) viewed and discussed a CCTV footage of a fight breaking out, with co-witnesses, before giving individual statements, where they were asked to identify which person had started the fight; confederates were used to suggest that the wrong man had started the fight. Results indicated that participants were vulnerable to co-witness influence, but only when exposed to misinformation from a majority of co-witnesses. Misinformation presented by an individual confederate did not have a significant influence over the participants’ responses. This study was the first to investigate the effects of group size on blame attribution. The findings suggest that the true risks of co-witness influence may not be as high as originally predicted from research on eyewitness pairs.

The offence of arson comes under the category of property crime, although the serious consequences of the offence often have a huge impact on both people and public costs, with serious injury and death potential outcomes. As with many crimes, there are various motivations that may behind a person committing arson. These can be understood under whether the offence was instrumental and therefore carrying out the crime for personal gain, or expressive, carrying out the offence due to difficulty in expressing their emotions. Instrumental arsonists may be easier to detect due to an often obvious financial or personal motivation, and these offenders are generally more common within the population of arsonists. However, perhaps more important to explore in relation to where psychology can best aid understanding and inform practice, is in cases where there is little or no instrumental value. These expressive arsonists are significantly more likely to reoffend than their instrumental counterparts, adding further to the need to gain a greater understanding of the factors that play a role in such individuals’ trajectories. The present paper reviews the\ud current literature surrounding expressive arson to present a more comprehensive understanding of the factors that contribute to this deviant behaviour. In doing so, the present paper draws on explanations from developmental, psychopathological and personality psychology to critically form such an understanding and present this in an understandable way that possesses heuristic value for the\ud psychological community with an interest in this area.

Over time, the concept of personality has stimulated considerable theorising and debate amongst researchers. Thought to be characteristics within an individual that account for consistent patterns of thought, feelings and behaviours, the quest to understand individual differences between human beings has led to the increased uptake of psychological measurement tools, known as psychometric tests. Many variations of psychometric tests that have been devised to date attempt to operationalise the theoretical principles of Trait theory and the dimensions therein. Typically, these are applied within occupational, educational and clinical settings, where such personality measures are considered increasingly useful in the evaluation of individuals either being assessed, or due to begin working within an organisation. However, despite researchers implementing psychometric tests such as the NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R; Costa and McCrae, 1992a) reporting high levels of construct validity for the measure (Widiger and Trull, 1997), criticism surrounding the reliability of findings obtained from applications of the tool, resulting from the general lack of agreement around the trait dimensions that underpin psychometric testing, remain important. Another highly contented issue surrounding the basis of such tests are the stability and situationalist arguments, which criticise such methods as inaccurately representing a true picture of the individual due to failing to take the full environmental influences upon people into account. Such issues are undoubtedly more complex than such a summarisation can accredit, and upon paying systematic and critical consideration to the related assessments, a greater depth of analysis may be drawn.

Over time, the concept of personality has stimulated considerable theorising and debate amongst researchers. Thought to be characteristics within an individual that account for consistent patterns of thought, feelings and behaviours, the quest to understand individual differences between human beings has led to the increased uptake of psychological measurement tools, known as psychometric tests. Many variations of psychometric tests that have been devised to date attempt to operationalise the theoretical principles of Trait theory and the dimensions therein. Typically, these are applied within occupational, educational and clinical settings, where such personality measures are considered increasingly useful in the evaluation of individuals either being assessed, or due to begin working within an organisation. However, despite researchers implementing psychometric tests such as the NEO Personality Inventory [1] reporting high levels of construct validity for the measure [2], criticism surrounding the reliability of findings obtained from applications of the tool, resulting from the general lack of agreement around the trait dimensions that underpin psychometric testing, remain important. Another highly contested issue surrounding the basis of such tests are the stability and situationalist arguments, which criticise such methods as inaccurately representing a true picture of the individual due to failing to take the full environmental influences upon people into account. Such issues are undoubtedly more complex than such a summarisation can accredit, and upon paying systematic and critical consideration to the related assessments, a greater depth of analysis may be drawn.