口吃者的目击证词:证据、经验和感知可信度。

IF 3.3 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Katie Maras, Sohee Park, Patrick Grafton, Jasmin Peat, Navyaa Toshniwal, Alice Haigherty, Kevin Guo, Monty Franks, Hannah Goodwin, Victoria Grau Sainz, Amaira Sharma, Alisa Fridman, Luke Gordon-Ellis, Kirsten Howells
{"title":"口吃者的目击证词:证据、经验和感知可信度。","authors":"Katie Maras, Sohee Park, Patrick Grafton, Jasmin Peat, Navyaa Toshniwal, Alice Haigherty, Kevin Guo, Monty Franks, Hannah Goodwin, Victoria Grau Sainz, Amaira Sharma, Alisa Fridman, Luke Gordon-Ellis, Kirsten Howells","doi":"10.1111/bjop.70014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Stammering may impede an individual's eyewitness testimony and reduce jurors' perceptions of their credibility through a complex interplay of bio-psycho-social factors. However, no research to date has explored this. Three co-produced, mixed-methods studies are reported, investigating the evidential quality, lived experiences and perceived credibility of people who stammer (PWS) as witnesses. In pre-registered Study 1, PWS recalled as much correct information as non-stammering witnesses overall. However, during the free - but not cued - recall interview phase, PWS provided fewer correct details. A reflexive thematic analysis of participants' post-testimony reflections captured how PWS experienced a cyclical relationship between communicative pressure, anxiety over listener misperceptions and stammer severity, which they navigated either by employing avoidance strategies at the expense of testimony or by speaking through their stammer. In pre-registered Study 2, mock jurors rated PWS as less confident yet more likeable and trustworthy than non-stammering witnesses. In Study 3, providing jurors with information about stammering further improved their likeability and trustworthiness but had no impact on perceived confidence. Findings provide new insight into communication disorders in legal contexts - and the unique challenges faced by PWS in particular - demonstrating the need for systemic accommodations and targeted training for legal professionals.</p>","PeriodicalId":9300,"journal":{"name":"British journal of psychology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Eyewitness testimony by individuals who stammer: Evidence, experience and perceived credibility.\",\"authors\":\"Katie Maras, Sohee Park, Patrick Grafton, Jasmin Peat, Navyaa Toshniwal, Alice Haigherty, Kevin Guo, Monty Franks, Hannah Goodwin, Victoria Grau Sainz, Amaira Sharma, Alisa Fridman, Luke Gordon-Ellis, Kirsten Howells\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/bjop.70014\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Stammering may impede an individual's eyewitness testimony and reduce jurors' perceptions of their credibility through a complex interplay of bio-psycho-social factors. However, no research to date has explored this. Three co-produced, mixed-methods studies are reported, investigating the evidential quality, lived experiences and perceived credibility of people who stammer (PWS) as witnesses. In pre-registered Study 1, PWS recalled as much correct information as non-stammering witnesses overall. However, during the free - but not cued - recall interview phase, PWS provided fewer correct details. A reflexive thematic analysis of participants' post-testimony reflections captured how PWS experienced a cyclical relationship between communicative pressure, anxiety over listener misperceptions and stammer severity, which they navigated either by employing avoidance strategies at the expense of testimony or by speaking through their stammer. In pre-registered Study 2, mock jurors rated PWS as less confident yet more likeable and trustworthy than non-stammering witnesses. In Study 3, providing jurors with information about stammering further improved their likeability and trustworthiness but had no impact on perceived confidence. Findings provide new insight into communication disorders in legal contexts - and the unique challenges faced by PWS in particular - demonstrating the need for systemic accommodations and targeted training for legal professionals.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9300,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"British journal of psychology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"British journal of psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.70014\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British journal of psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.70014","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

口吃可能会阻碍个人的目击证词,并通过生物、心理和社会因素的复杂相互作用降低陪审员对其可信度的看法。然而,迄今为止还没有研究对此进行过探索。报告了三个共同制作的混合方法研究,调查证据质量,生活经历和口吃者(PWS)作为证人的可信度。在预先登记的研究1中,总体而言,PWS与非口吃证人回忆起的正确信息一样多。然而,在自由而非提示回忆访谈阶段,PWS提供的正确细节较少。对参与者证词后反思的反身性专题分析揭示了PWS如何经历沟通压力、对听者误解的焦虑和口吃严重程度之间的周期性关系,他们要么以牺牲证词为代价采用回避策略,要么通过口吃说话来应对。在预先登记的研究2中,模拟陪审员认为PWS比非结巴证人更不自信,但更讨人喜欢,更值得信赖。在研究3中,向陪审员提供有关口吃的信息进一步提高了他们的亲和力和可信度,但对感知信心没有影响。调查结果为法律环境下的沟通障碍提供了新的见解,特别是PWS面临的独特挑战,表明需要对法律专业人员进行系统的调整和有针对性的培训。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Eyewitness testimony by individuals who stammer: Evidence, experience and perceived credibility.

Stammering may impede an individual's eyewitness testimony and reduce jurors' perceptions of their credibility through a complex interplay of bio-psycho-social factors. However, no research to date has explored this. Three co-produced, mixed-methods studies are reported, investigating the evidential quality, lived experiences and perceived credibility of people who stammer (PWS) as witnesses. In pre-registered Study 1, PWS recalled as much correct information as non-stammering witnesses overall. However, during the free - but not cued - recall interview phase, PWS provided fewer correct details. A reflexive thematic analysis of participants' post-testimony reflections captured how PWS experienced a cyclical relationship between communicative pressure, anxiety over listener misperceptions and stammer severity, which they navigated either by employing avoidance strategies at the expense of testimony or by speaking through their stammer. In pre-registered Study 2, mock jurors rated PWS as less confident yet more likeable and trustworthy than non-stammering witnesses. In Study 3, providing jurors with information about stammering further improved their likeability and trustworthiness but had no impact on perceived confidence. Findings provide new insight into communication disorders in legal contexts - and the unique challenges faced by PWS in particular - demonstrating the need for systemic accommodations and targeted training for legal professionals.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
British journal of psychology
British journal of psychology PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
2.50%
发文量
67
期刊介绍: The British Journal of Psychology publishes original research on all aspects of general psychology including cognition; health and clinical psychology; developmental, social and occupational psychology. For information on specific requirements, please view Notes for Contributors. We attract a large number of international submissions each year which make major contributions across the range of psychology.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信