Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Sep 29;29(4):577-592.
doi: 10.1080/13218719.2021.1956382. eCollection 2022.

The perceived credibility of repeated-event witnesses depends upon their veracity

Sarah L Deck  1 , Helen M Paterson  1
Affiliations

The perceived credibility of repeated-event witnesses depends upon their veracity

Sarah L Deck et al. Psychiatr Psychol Law. .

Abstract

For repeated crimes like domestic violence and workplace bullying, the primary evidence is often the alleged victim's testimony. Consequently, the perceived credibility of repeated event speakers can be pivotal to legal proceedings. In order to investigate perceptions of truthful and deceptive repeated-event speakers, undergraduate students observed interviews of speakers describing a single occurrence of an event that was either experienced or fabricated either once or multiple times. Some participants additionally read an expert statement on repeated-event memory. The effect of repetition on perceived credibility depended on the speaker's veracity, enhancing the credibility of fabricators but diminishing the credibility of truth-tellers. The expert testimony was found to raise the perceived honesty and cognitive competence of the repeated-event speakers and thus could be a promising mechanism for enhancing perceived credibility in legal proceedings.

Keywords: credibility; credibility assessment; deception detection; decision making; eyewitness testimony; memory; repeated events.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Mean perceived overall credibility according to speaker veracity and event frequency.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Mean perceived honesty of speakers according to event frequency and expert testimony.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Alonso-Quecuty, M. (1992). Deception detection and reality monitoring: A new answer to an old question. In Losel F., Bender D., & Bliesener T. (Eds.), Psychology and law: International perspectives (pp. 328–332). Walter de Gruyter.
    1. Benton, T. R., Ross, D. F., Bradshaw, E., Thomas, W. N., & Bradshaw, G. S. (2006). Eyewitness memory is still not common sense: Comparing jurors, judges and law enforcement to eyewitness experts. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20(1), 115–129. 10.1002/acp.1171 - DOI
    1. Bond, C. F., Jr,., & DePaulo, B. M. (2006). Accuracy of deception judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(3), 214–234. 10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_2 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Connolly, D. A., Price, H. L., Lavoie, J. A., & Gordon, H. M. (2008). Perceptions and predictors of children’s credibility of a unique event and an instance of a repeated event. Law and Human Behavior, 32(1), 92–112. 10.1007/s10979-006-9083-3 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Cullen, H. J., & Monds, L. A. (2020). Jury simulation studies: To exclude or not to exclude participants based on a lack of comprehension of the case? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 34(5), 1224–1233. 10.1002/acp.3695 - DOI

LinkOut - more resources