PSYCH FINAL

Historical barriers to child testimony

Age limits, corroboration requirements, and restrictions on hearsay made child testimony difficult or inadmissible.

Why children were viewed as unreliable witnesses

They were believed to have poor memory, high suggestibility, and low credibility compared to adults.

Suggestibility

The tendency for memory to be altered by misleading questions, repetition, or social pressure.

Factors that increase suggestibility

Leading questions, repeated interviews, social pressure, and younger age.

Factors that decrease suggestibility

Open-ended questions, neutral interviewing, avoiding repetition, and low interviewer bias.

Protective devices for child witnesses

Shields, videotaped testimony, hearsay allowances, court dogs, and child advocates

Children’s Advocacy Centers (CACs)

Child-friendly centers that conduct forensic interviews and coordinate care for abused children.

Court school

Programs that prepare children for what testifying in court will be like.

Ross et al. findings on protective devices

Protective devices did NOT increase conviction rates and sometimes decreased them.

Supreme Court concern about protective devices

They feared shields/videotapes might signal that the defendant is dangerous or guilty.

Sam Stone study

Showed that repeated suggestion + stereotypes can implant false memories in children.

Key lesson from Sam Stone study

Poor interviewing techniques can create false memories that children believe are real.

Why deception detection matters

Used in criminal investigations, courts, security screening, and interrogations.

Reasons people lie

Gain rewards, avoid punishment, protect self-image, and manage impressions.

Polygraph assumption

Lying causes physiological arousal (heart rate, breathing, sweating, blood pressure).

Why polygraphs are often inadmissible

They are not consistently reliable and produce false positives/negatives.

When polygraph info can still be used

If a confession is obtained during the session, that confession can be admitted.

Cognitive complexity in deception detection

Assessing story detail, structure, and mental effort to distinguish truth from lies.

Why most people are poor lie detectors

Lack of cues, inconsistent behaviors, reliance on stereotypes, and low exposure to high-stakes lies.

Micro-expressions

Brief involuntary facial expressions that may leak true emotions during deception.

Why cognitive load improves lie detection

Lying becomes harder under pressure, increasing behavioral “leakage.”

Reid interrogation technique

Confrontational method that assumes guilt and pressures suspects to confess.

Factors increasing false confessions

Coercion, long interrogations, stress, youth, and suggestive questioning.

Why interrogations should be recorded

Improves transparency, prevents coercion, and allows courts to evaluate confession reliability.

Symbolic function of the jury

Represents democracy, fairness, presumption of innocence, and protection from government power.

Juror competence

Jurors are generally competent but can be influenced by bias, confusion, and emotions

Story Model of juries

Jurors build a narrative story from evidence and choose the verdict that best fits it

Extralegal factors

Irrelevant influences like appearance, race, pretrial publicity, or attitudes.

Pretrial publicity effect

Can bias jurors before trial begins by shaping expectations and beliefs

Jury size findings

Larger juries are more representative, deliberate longer, and recall more evidence.

Benefits of jury deliberation

Improves memory, corrects errors, and helps jurors form a shared interpretation.

Jury reform: juror questions

Jurors can ask questions (screened by judge), improving understanding and engagement

Jury reform: mid-trial discussion

Allows jurors to discuss evidence during trial to improve comprehension and memory.

Plain-language jury instructions

Simplified instructions improve understanding and reduce confusion.

Voir dire

Jury selection process where attorneys question jurors to assess bias.

Challenge for cause

Removing a juror due to clear bias or inability to be impartial.

Peremptory challenge

Removing a juror without giving a reason.

Jury representativeness problem (Hamilton County)

Jury pools underrepresent minorities and lower-income groups, affecting fairness.

What is the controversy surrounding repressed and recovered memories?

The debate is whether traumatic memories can be truly repressed and later accurately recovered, or if many recovered memories are actually false memories created through suggestion. Research shows memory is reconstructive and can be distorted, especially through leading questions or repeated interviews.

What is the main concern with recovered memories in court?

They may be inaccurate or completely false, yet strongly believed, which can lead to wrongful accusations or convictions.

What is the primary goal of criminal profiling?

To identify likely characteristics of an unknown offender to help narrow suspects and guide investigations

What are the major criticisms of criminal profiling?

It lacks strong scientific support, can be vague, may lead to confirmation bias, and often has low predictive accuracy.

How do organized offenders behave?

They plan crimes, target specific victims, show control, avoid evidence, and tend to be socially competent.

How do disorganized offenders behave?

They act impulsively, leave chaotic crime scenes, choose victims randomly, leave more evidence, and often have lower social functioning.

How do emotions influence juror decision-making?

Emotions like anger or sympathy can bias judgments, affecting verdicts, liability decisions, and damage awards.

Why are jurors not completely objective?

Their emotions, personal experiences, and biases influence how they interpret evidence.

Why do jurors struggle with scientific or technical expert testimony?

It is complex, and jurors often don’t understand scientific methods or validity.

hat do jurors rely on when they don’t understand expert testimony?

They rely on peripheral cues like the expert’s credentials, appearance, or confidence instead of the quality of the science.