CALiO Search

Do jurors get what they expect? Traditional versus alternative forms of children's testimony

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author McAuliff, B. D., & Bull Kovera, M.
dc.date.accessioned 2016-09-19T16:04:14Z
dc.date.available 2016-09-19T16:04:14Z
dc.date.issued 2012
dc.identifier.citation McAuliff, B. D., & Bull Kovera, M. (2012). Do jurors get what they expect? Traditional versus alternative forms of children's testimony. Psychology, Crime & Law, 18(1), 27-47. en_US
dc.identifier.uri http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3329119/
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/11212/2938
dc.description.abstract This study examined prospective jurors' expectancies for the verbal and nonverbal behavior of a child testifying in a sexual abuse case. Community members (N = 261) reporting for jury duty completed a survey in which they described their expectancies for how a child alleging sexual abuse would appear when testifying and their beliefs about discerning children's truthfulness, testimony stress, and fairness to trial parties. Within this survey, we varied the child's age (5, 10, or 15 years old), type of abuse alleged (vaginal fondling or penetration), and whether the abuse actually occurred (yes, no) between participants across five different testimony conditions (traditional live in-court, support person present, closed-circuit television, preparation, and videotape) within each participant. Participants expected a child providing traditional testimony to be more nervous, tearful, and fidgety; less confident, cooperative, and fluent; and to maintain less eye contact and provide shorter responses than when the child provided alternative forms of testimony. Participants believed it was easiest to determine a child's truthfulness and fairest to the defendant when the child testified live in court, but that this form of testimony was the most stressful and unfair to the child. Expectancies and beliefs differed within the alternative forms of testimony as well. Negative evaluations of children's alternative testimony may be the result of expectancy violation; namely, jurors expect differences in children's verbal and nonverbal behavior as a result of accommodation, but those differences actually do not occur. en_US
dc.language.iso en_US en_US
dc.publisher Psychology, Crime & Law en_US
dc.subject testimony en_US
dc.subject jurors en_US
dc.subject sexual abuse en_US
dc.subject child witness en_US
dc.subject research en_US
dc.title Do jurors get what they expect? Traditional versus alternative forms of children's testimony en_US
dc.type Article en_US


Files in this item

Files Size Format View

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search


Browse

My Account