Innocence and Guilt Detection in High-Stakes Television Appeals

University of Huddersfield Repository Ng, Magdalene Y.L. Innocence and Guilt Detection in High-Stakes Television Appeals Original Citation Ng, Magdalene Y.L. (2016) Innocence and Guilt Detection in High-Stakes Television Appeals. Doctoral thesis, University of Huddersfield. This version is available at http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/id/eprint/32621/ The University Repository is a digital collection of the research output of the University, available on Open Access. Copyright and Moral Rights for the items on this site are retained by the individual author and/or other copyright owners. Users may access full items free of charge; copies of full text items generally can be reproduced, displayed or performed and given to third parties in any format or medium for personal research or study, educational or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge, provided: • The authors, title and full bibliographic details is credited in any copy; • A hyperlink and/or URL is included for the original metadata page; and • The content is not changed in any way. For more information, including our policy and submission procedure, please contact the Repository Team at: [email protected]. http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/ Innocence and Guilt Detection in High-Stakes Television Appeals Magdalene Y. l. ng A thesis submitted to the University of Huddersfield in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy SepteMber 2016 2 COpYrIgHt STATEMENT i. The author of this thesis (including any appendices and/or schedules to this thesis) owns any copyright in it (the “copyright”) and s/he has given The University of Huddersfield the right to use such Copyright for any administrative, promotional, educational and/or teaching purposes. ii. Copies of this thesis, either in full or in extracts, may be made only in accordance with the regulations of the University Library. Details of these regulations may be obtained from the Librarian. This page must form part of any such copies. iii. The ownership of any patents, designs, trademarks and any and all other intellectual property rights except for the Copyright (the “Intellectual Property Rights”) and reproductions of copyright works, for example graphs and tables (“Reproductions”), which may be described in this thesis, may not be owned by the author and may be owned by third parties. Such Intellectual Property Rights and Reproductions cannot and must not be made available for use without the prior written permission of the owner(s) of the relevant Intellectual Property right and/or Reproductions. 3 Pilate SaItH untO him, “WHat is trutH?” John 18:38, King James Version 4 abSTRACt The present thesis explored the cognitive and affective mechanisms underlying the cues used to make innocence-guilt decisions in the high-stakes situation of television appeals in which people appeal publicly for the return of a loved one. Two aspects of the processes involved in making judgements of veracity were studied. Part 2 examined the interaction between explicit and implicit judgments. The studies in Part 2 experimentally manipulated aspects of 12 appeals to test hypotheses about the heuristics judges used to determine veracity. The hypotheses in these studies were initially based on the central assumption that in the absence of unambiguous information judges will draw on heuristics to make veracity judgments. These cognitive shortcuts were hypothesised to lead to biases in innocence-guilt judgments. The innocence bias was introduced as a potential predisposition that stood to be tested. Results did not reveal a consistent innocence or guilt bias. Rather, while all four experiments in Part 2 indicated the presence of different underlying cognitive processes across all experimental conditions, the results from these studies would appear to challenge the existence of any intrinsic tendency towards biases. In Part 3, the context of the appeals was taken as the basis for the assumption that truthful people would give clearer indications of grief than ones who were lying. Multivariate cues were analysed simultaneously using 39 appeals, with a theoretical basis drawn from the grief literature. Eight previously unidentified aspects consisting of verbal cues drawn from grief literature are found to distinguish honest and deceptive appeals with high accuracy and reliability. The work thus contributed to the initial understanding of the interaction between explicit and implicit decisions in making innocence-guilt judgments. Standing models of cognitive processing and their implications for the present thesis were also discussed. Contingent upon further clarification of cognitive processes involved during innocence and guilt verdict decision-making, the findings are particularly germane to the area of televised press conferences and have implications for police and practice. 5 DEDICATIOn For two special people, both who passed on during the writing of this thesis: To my Pa who left in the first year of my doctorate journey – I am forever grateful to you for believing in me at a time when no others did and always leading me to always try be the best of the best. When I first told you I wanted to pursue a Masters in Forensic Psychology in New York, you raised an eyebrow but never stopped me. When I then told you I wanted to pursue a PhD in the UK you raised both eyebrows, but made it possible. When I shared with you what my research was going to be about, I will never forget the mixture of contentment and joy (you tried your best to hide them of course, but leakages ensured I saw them) a father wears on his face for his daughter. This thesis is now finished; another one to add to your library of book collection (if you deem it fit). To my now late aunt who left in the last year of my doctorate journey – Nachatiram, you were and will always be a star in my universe when no other light shone, true to the meaning of your name. You were so happy to know that I was so close to the finish line before you went. This thesis is also for you. You can read it in turns with Pa. I love you both. 6 aCKnOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my highest gratitude to my supervisors David and Donna. Both of you have been such great mentors to me, directly and indirectly. I would like to thank the both of you for your selfless time and care in encouraging my research, guiding the writing of my thesis and allowing me to grow as a researcher. It was by chance that I came to be under your supervision. I was a Research Assistant for a PhD student in John Jay College of Criminal Justice when I confided in them as to the possibilities of doing a doctorate. It was through her that I had heard about the pair of you. I did my homework, and found there was an intake for a doctorate program in October 2013. A few months after submitting my proposal for which I was accepted upon (not in lie detection, but in eyewitness testimony), I’d moved from New York City (that never sleeps) to the (sleepy) town of Huddersfield and here my doctorate journey began with the both of you as my supervisors. On the very first day of my doctorate commencing, I was asked ‘There’s this opportunity to work with television appeals… do you want to research on lie detection instead?’ Thank you, for asking me that question. I thank my fellow Ph.D. colleagues for all the stimulating discussions (and guidance from senior colleagues) you have all provided me. I deeply value all your company, your jokes, your entertaining stories, your uplifting words and the motivation that you have in some way or other afforded me throughout the past few years. Without all of you, the journey would have been that much more tedious. I sincerely thank all the MSc in Investigative Psychology students involved in the data collection portion of this thesis, in collaboration as part of a module I directed in 2014-2015. Thank you for also providing me with an experience in teaching a course and grading your final essays. Without all of your hard work in collecting data, my data pool would have been significantly smaller. In no particular order, thank you to Pheobe, Helene, David, Sharon, Sofia, Anneka, Anita, Karine, Samantha, Maria, Loren, Nicole, Costas, Myrwan, Bryan, Dara, Eirini, Kelly, Andreas, Elena, Megan, Christos, Holly, Dale, Geoff, Kirsty K., Kirsty L., Pakstan and Chiara. A huge thank you for being involved in the data collection for Studies 1 to 4. I also express my gratitude towards Leanne ten Brinke for generously disclosing to me her list of television appeals so I did not need to start procuring them from scratch. Steve Penrod, thanks for clueing me in to the fact that Leanne had this list to begin with, during a random chat at my very first conference back in 2013. To my dearest and closest friends both far and near in all five continents (alas, I know of no one in Antarctica), you know who you are – I am infinitely grateful for all your emotional support, belief in my capabilities and tireless encouragement along the way, both in person and through virtual means. Who else can make me laugh that way but the bunch of you, virtual or not? 7 I thank my band members, who in the past year have offered me an artistic outlet (indispensable during the writing of a thesis!) and an experience I will truly never forget. To my part-time work colleagues, thanks for providing me with mindless banter. A refreshing welcome and all I can handle some nights after long days thinking about the ‘hard stuff’.

Load more