Matching Items (3)
141337-Thumbnail Image.png
Description

Despite advances in the scientific methodology of witness testimony research, no sound measure currently exists to evaluate perceptions of testimony skills. Drawing on self-efficacy and witness preparation research, the present study describes development of the Observed Witness Efficacy Scale (OWES). Factor analyses of a mock jury sample yielded a two-factor

Despite advances in the scientific methodology of witness testimony research, no sound measure currently exists to evaluate perceptions of testimony skills. Drawing on self-efficacy and witness preparation research, the present study describes development of the Observed Witness Efficacy Scale (OWES). Factor analyses of a mock jury sample yielded a two-factor structure (Poise and Communication Style) consistent with previous research on witness self-ratings of testimony delivery skills. OWES subscales showed differential patterns of association with witness credibility, witness believability, agreement with the witness, and verdict decision. Juror gender moderated the impact of Communication Style, but not Poise, on belief of and agreement with the witness. Results are discussed with attention to application of the OWES to witness research and preparation training.

ContributorsCramer, Robert J. (Author) / DeCoster, Jamie (Author) / Neal, Tess M.S. (Author) / Brodsky, Stanley L. (Author)
Created2013
141349-Thumbnail Image.png
Description

In an anonymous 4-person economic game, participants contributed more money to a common project (i.e., cooperated) when required to decide quickly than when forced to delay their decision (Rand, Greene & Nowak, 2012), a pattern consistent with the social heuristics hypothesis proposed by Rand and colleagues. The results of studies

In an anonymous 4-person economic game, participants contributed more money to a common project (i.e., cooperated) when required to decide quickly than when forced to delay their decision (Rand, Greene & Nowak, 2012), a pattern consistent with the social heuristics hypothesis proposed by Rand and colleagues. The results of studies using time pressure have been mixed, with some replication attempts observing similar patterns (e.g., Rand et al., 2014) and others observing null effects (e.g., Tinghög et al., 2013; Verkoeijen & Bouwmeester, 2014). This Registered Replication Report (RRR) assessed the size and variability of the effect of time pressure on cooperative decisions by combining 21 separate, preregistered replications of the critical conditions from Study 7 of the original article (Rand et al., 2012). The primary planned analysis used data from all participants who were randomly assigned to conditions and who met the protocol inclusion criteria (an intent-to-treat approach that included the 65.9% of participants in the time- pressure condition and 7.5% in the forced-delay condition who did not adhere to the time constraints), and we observed a difference in contributions of −0.37 percentage points compared with an 8.6 percentage point difference calculated from the original data. Analyzing the data as the original article did, including data only for participants who complied with the time constraints, the RRR observed a 10.37 percentage point difference in contributions compared with a 15.31 percentage point difference in the original study. In combination, the results of the intent-to-treat analysis and the compliant-only analysis are consistent with the presence of selection biases and the absence of a causal effect of time pressure on cooperation.

ContributorsBouwmeester, S. (Author) / Verkoeijen, P.P.J.L. (Author) / Aczel, B. (Author) / Barbosa, F. (Author) / Begue, L. (Author) / Branas-Garza, P. (Author) / Chmura, T.G.H. (Author) / Cornelissen, G. (Author) / Dossing, F.S. (Author) / Espin, A.M. (Author) / Evans, A.M. (Author) / Ferreira-Santos, F. (Author) / Fieldler, S. (Author) / Flegr, J. (Author) / Ghaffari, M. (Author) / Gloeckner, A. (Author) / Goeschl, T. (Author) / Guo, L. (Author) / Hauser, O.P. (Author) / Hernan-Gonzalez, R. (Author) / Herrero, A. (Author) / Horne, Z. (Author) / Houdek, P. (Author) / Johannesson, M. (Author) / Koppel, L. (Author) / Kujal, P. (Author) / Laine, T. (Author) / Lohse, J. (Author) / Martins, E.C. (Author) / Mauro, C. (Author) / Mischkowski, D. (Author) / Mukherjee, S. (Author) / Myrseth, K.O.R. (Author) / Navarro-Martinez, D. (Author) / Neal, T.M.S. (Author) / Novakova, J. (Author) / Paga, R. (Author) / Paiva, T.O. (Author) / Palfi, B. (Author) / Piovesan, M. (Author) / Rahal, R.-M. (Author) / Salomon, E. (Author) / Srinivasan, N. (Author) / Srivastava, A. (Author) / Szaszi, B. (Author) / Szollosi, A. (Author) / Thor, K.O. (Author) / Tinghog, G. (Author) / Trueblood, J.S. (Author) / Van Bavel, J.J. (Author) / van't Veer, A.E. (Author) / Vastfjall, D. (Author) / Warner, M. (Author) / Wengstrom, E. (Author) / Wills, J. (Author) / Wollbrant, C.E. (Author)
Created2017-03-01
141327-Thumbnail Image.png
Description

Despite the application of Self-Efficacy Theory (Bandura, 1977, 2000) to many areas of psychology, there is a lack of research on self-efficacy in the ability to testify in court. The present study fills this gap by incrementally developing the construct of Witness Self-Efficacy and establishing its psychometric properties. Study I

Despite the application of Self-Efficacy Theory (Bandura, 1977, 2000) to many areas of psychology, there is a lack of research on self-efficacy in the ability to testify in court. The present study fills this gap by incrementally developing the construct of Witness Self-Efficacy and establishing its psychometric properties. Study I featured exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses yielding a two-factor Witness Self-Efficacy Scale (WSES). The two components are Poise and Communication Style. Study II used a second data collection to show that both WSES domains possess convergent, divergent, and predictive validity relations consistent with those expected using an SET framework. Notably, WSES components predicted perceptions of witness credibility and sentencing outcomes above and beyond witness extraversion, general self-efficacy and general self-confidence. Implications for SET and witness preparation training are discussed.

ContributorsCramer, Robert J. (Author) / Neal, Tess M.S. (Author) / DeCoster, Jamie (Author) / Brodsky, Stanley L. (Author)
Created2010