Edith Greene

The role of culture‐specific schemata in the comprehension and recall of stories∗

Experiment I shows that readers write better summaries of stories for which they have an appropriate schema than for stories for which they lack a schema, and that this effect is related to the overall organization of the story and does not lie at the level of single sentences. Raters who judged the quality of the summaries found summaries from stories that corresponded to a familiar story schema more informative than those from stories for which they did not have an appropriate schema, even when the latter accurately summarized the story in question. In Experiment II, sequential recall of a story which deviated in various ways from the subjects’ story schema resulted in poor performance: the stories tended to break up after a chain of five sequential recalls, in contrast to a well‐structured, schema‐based story that was usually recalled quite completely and without serious distortions. It was suggested that a culture‐specific schema aids both in comprehending and reconstructing stories.

Inducing Resistance to Misleading Information.

Previous research has shown that misleading information presented after a witnessed event may become incorporated into a persons memory, and either supplement or alter the original memory. In the current research, 216 subjects participated in four experiments designed to explore whether warning people about the possibility of future misinformation would increase their resistance to that misinformation. Taken together, the results of these studies indicated that exposure to a warning just prior to the presentation of the misinformation caused subjects to read the information more slowly, and resulted in a slightly greater resistance to its suggestive effect. Warnings given at other times, particularly after the misinformation had already been processed, had no effect.

Warning: Even memory for faces may be contagious

College students (521) participated in this research program designed to study the extent to which memory for faces can be altered. Pilot results indicated that subjects who viewed a face and then heard a description of that face ostensibly written by another witness were influenced by that description. Specifically, subjects adopted the verbal expressions of another witness even when those expressions were in error. Furthermore, subjects who heard a misleading detail had a tendency to incorporate that detail into their reconstructions of the original face; subjects who did not hear the misleading detail rarely did so. These findings were further explored in three larger-scale experiments. In each of the three experiments, subjects viewed a target individual in a photograph (Experiment 2), in a film (Experiment 1), or live (Experiment 3). Subsequently, some subjects were exposed to misleading information via a version of the target individual ostensibly given by another witness (Experiments 1 and 2). The major results were as follows: (1) Experiment 1: If another witness referred to a misleading feature, over a third of the subjects included that detail in their own description, using the exact wording that the other witness had used. Control subjects rarely did so (5%). (2) Experiment 2: If the other witness referred to a misleading detail, nearly 70% of the subjects later “recognized” an individual with that feature. Control subjects did so far less often (13%). (3) If subjects were questioned with leading questions containing misinformation about a critical feature (moustache), over 30% indicated that they had seen the critical feature. Control subjects rarely did so (4%). These results show that memory for a face is affected by the introduction of subsequent misleading information about that face, contradicting the view that faces are special in their lack of susceptibility to interference. These results have important implications for police practices regarding eyewitness recognition.

Juror and expert knowledge of child sexual abuse

Mental health professionals with expertise in child sexual abuse (CSA) often testify as expert witnesses in court. There is significant controversy over the admissibility of this type of evidence. To be admissible, the testimony of an expert must be beyond the common knowledge of the jury and based on information generally considered to be reliable within the professional community in which it is used. To date, no empirical data have existed to allow courts to make an informed judgement as to the extent of either juror knowledge or professional acceptance of CSA data. The present study addresses this issue. Jurors and experts completed a questionnaire designed to reveal their understanding of CSA. Results indicate that experts demonstrated strong consensus on 29 of 40 items included in the questionnaire, and that relative to experts, jurors have limited knowledge of these issues. These results suggest that many of the scientific findings concerning CSA are reliable and that the information is often beyond the common knowledge of the jury. These findings argue for the use of expert testimony in select cases of child sexual abuse.

THE PREJUDICIAL NATURE OF VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENTS Implications for Capital Sentencing Policy

Victim impact evidence is presented during sentencing hearings to convey the harm experienced by victims and victims’ relatives as a result of a crime. Its use in capital cases is highly controversial. Some argue that the Supreme Court’s decision to allow the admission of victim impact statements (VIS) during capital sentencing proceedings (Payne v. Tennessee, 1991) invites prejudice and judgments based on emotion rather than reason. Others reason that it provides an important voice for survivors and affords the jury an opportunity to learn about the victim. The authors outline the chief psychological issues that arise in the context of VIS, including their relevance to jurors’ judgments of blameworthiness, concerns that the social worth of the victim will influence jurors’ sentencing decisions, and issues related to the emotional appeal of VIS. Psycholegal research on the influence of VIS on mock jurors is reviewed, and implications of this work for capital sentencing policy and suggested directions for future research are discussed.

Jurors' Knowledge of Battered Women

An increasing number of psychologists with expertise in the area of battered women are participating in the legal system as expert witnesses and occasionally testify on behalf of a battered woman who has injured or killed her partner. Testimony about the battered woman syndrome has been offered to help the jury understand why the defendant reasonably perceived that she was in danger of harm. One of the requirements of expert testimony is that it be beyond the common understanding of the jury. Many commentators assume that jurors are uninformed or misinformed about battered women and, thus, that expert testimony is necessary to educate them. This study evaluated what jurors know about violent relationships. Approximately 300 jurors read scenarios about spousal violence and answered a questionnaire dealing with circumstances surrounding such abuse. Results suggest that on certain dimensions of spousal violence, jurors are aware of empirical research findings. On other dimensions, jurors are less well-informed and could potentially benefit from the testimony of an expert.

When Crimes Are Joined at Trial

In two experiments, subject-jurors read evidence from actual criminal cases, decided on the guilt of the defendant, and answered several additional questions. The defendant was accused of one charge (murder or rape) or two charges (both murder and rape). In both experiments, the defendant was more likely to be convicted of either crime if the two charges were joined in one trial. Trait ratings indicated that the defendant was perceived in a more negative way when standing trial on two offenses. The order in which the charges were heard had no effect, nor did instructions to subjects to judge the cases separately.

Determining damages: The influence of expert testimony on jurors' decision making.

How do jurors accomplish the task of awarding damages in a civil lawsuit? to what extent are they influenced by expert testimony? These questions were addressed in a mock juror simulation in which jurors from El Paso County (Colorado) read one of three versions of a trial manuscript involving an age discrimination claim in which liability was already determined. They awarded damages and answered follow-up questions. In one version, there was no expert testimony; in a second version, they received plaintiff expert testimony on lost future wages and other economic matters; and in the third version, they received both plaintiff and defense expert testimony. Monetary awards were significantly higher when expert(s) testified. Moreover, jurors were strongly influenced by the expert testimony: Nearly half of them selected a damage award that exactly matched the amounts suggested. Finally, jurors infrequently considered exponential calculations in assessing damages.

Beliefs About Forensic Hypnosis

Abstract The beliefs people hold about hypnosis have an impact on the behavior of a witness who is hypnotized and on juries who hear these witnesses and weigh hypnotically influenced testimony. Students in Experiment 1 and registered voters from the community in Experiment 2 responded to questions about forensic hypnosis. Over 70% of the students as compared to about 50% of the community members were favorable toward the use of hypnosis by police for memory enhancement. In both groups, however, twice as many people reported that they would put less faith rather than more faith in the testimony of someone who had been hypnotized. A substantial portion of the students firmed common myths about the effects of hypnosis on memory and behavior.

Compensating Plaintiffs and Punishing Defendants: Is Bifurcation Necessary?

Critics of the civil jury have proposed several procedural reforms to address the concern that damage awards are capricious and unpredictable. One such reform is the bifurcation or separation of various phases of a trial that involves multiple claims for damages. The purpose of this study was to assess the effects of bifurcating the compensatory and punitive damages phases of a civil tort trial. We manipulated the wealth of the defendant and the reprehensibility of the defendants conduct (both sets of evidence theoretically related to punitive but not to compensatory damages) across three cases in a jury analog study. We wondered whether jurors would misuse the punitive damages evidence in fixing compensatory damages and whether bifurcation would effectively undo this practice. Our findings indicated that mock jurors did not improperly consider punitive damages evidence in their decisions about compensation. Moreover, bifurcation had the unexpected effect of augmenting punitive damage awards. These findings raise questions about the merits of bifurcation in cases that involve multiple claims for damages.