Group size, misinformation and unanimity influences on co-witness judgements

IF 0.7 4区 医学 Q4 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY
D. Mojtahedi, Maria Ioannou, Laura Hammond
{"title":"Group size, misinformation and unanimity influences on co-witness judgements","authors":"D. Mojtahedi, Maria Ioannou, Laura Hammond","doi":"10.1080/14789949.2018.1439990","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT 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.","PeriodicalId":47524,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology","volume":"29 1","pages":"844 - 865"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2018-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14789949.2018.1439990","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14789949.2018.1439990","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

ABSTRACT 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.
群体规模、错误信息和一致意见对共同证人判断的影响
研究人员通常观察共同证人对目击证人对的影响。然而,研究表明,在更大的群体中,个人更有可能目睹犯罪。此外,有大量证据表明,社会影响力在很大程度上受到群体规模的影响。因此,本研究旨在更准确地了解共同证人影响与一致性和群体规模效应的风险。参与者(N = 608)与共同证人一起观看并讨论了一场打斗的闭路电视录像,然后进行个人陈述,他们被要求指出是谁挑起了这场打斗;南方邦联的人常常说挑起战争的人是错的。结果表明,参与者容易受到共同证人的影响,但只有在接触到大多数共同证人的错误信息时才会如此。个体同盟者提供的错误信息对参与者的反应没有显著影响。这项研究首次调查了群体规模对归因责任的影响。研究结果表明,共同证人影响的真正风险可能没有最初对目击证人的研究预测的那么高。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
7.10%
发文量
44
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信