Potential Reporters of Suspected Child Maltreatment are Sensitive to the Amount of Evidence and the Potential Consequences of Reporting.

The context of suspected maltreatment cases is likely to influence the decision of whether or not to make a formal report. Across one pilot study (N = 368) and two experiments (Exp. 1 N = 444; Exp. 2 N =416), undergraduate students and online community participants reported their anticipated actions and beliefs when confronted with evidence of child maltreatment. Participants reviewed case dossiers built from real-world child neglect cases in which increasing levels of evidence were presented and the consequences of reporting, or not reporting, the maltreatment were made salient to the adult or child. The experiments revealed a clear difficulty in deciding whether or not to report suspected maltreatment. Highlighting the impact on either the child or the adult by describing potential consequences moved participants either closer to (child-salient) or farther from (adult-salient) a formal report. Participants were also sensitive to the amount of evidence to support a suspicion of abuse, which influenced the likelihood of a formal report. This work suggests that increasing the salience of maltreatment consequences to child victims may increase the likelihood that suspected maltreatment will be reported.

A Psychometric Investigation of the Hate-Motivated Behavior Checklist.

Hate-motivated behavior (HMB) comprises a continuum ranging from microaggressions to criminal acts. The measurement of HMB is limited primarily to one or two minoritized groups in any given instrument. Current HMB research also lacks a way to assess the full range of acts and motivations for bias-based behavior. The present study fills gaps in HMB measurement by conducting a psychometric study of the Hate-Motivated Behavior Checklist (HMBC). The HMBC is a self-report instrument of HMB perpetration; the instrument also has sections capturing victim target group (e.g. race, sexual orientation, disability) and perpetrator motivation for HMB commission (e.g., perceived threat, impulsivity). We conducted an online cross-sectional survey of community-dwelling adults and college students (N = 463). Measures assessed demographic information, HMB, and social-political characteristics. Confirmatory factor analysis, item response theory analyses, between-groups analyses (e.g., Analysis of Variance), and descriptive statistics were used to examine HMBC properties. Primary findings included (1) poor model fit of the HMBC behaviors score; (2) good model fit with high reliability for an HMBC behaviors score adapted to binary (no/yes) scoring; (3) men reported meaningfully higher HMB scores compared to women; (4) the most common target classification for HMB was based on political affiliation; and (5) perceived intrusion was the most cited reason for committing HMB. Our findings are an important step in refining the HMBC. The instrument represents a potentially useful tool for HMB research, surveillance, and intervention evaluation. Future directions in HMBC research include application to extremist and criminal samples, replication and extension of the binary scoring to include cut-score derivation, and validation against behavioral outcomes.

Assessing attitudes about hate: Further validation of the hate crime beliefs scale.

The Hate Crime Beliefs Scale (HCBS) is an assessment of attitudes about hate crime laws, offenders, and victims. The original HCBS includes four subscales (negative beliefs, offender punishment, deterrence, and victim harm), while a shortened and modified version from the United Kingdom (UK; HCBS-UK) consists of three subscales (denial, sentencing, and compassion). We conducted a psychometric test of the HCBS in order to identify a best fitting structure with possible item reduction. A total of 463 participants completed the original HCBS, measures of social dominance orientation (SDO) and right-wing authoritarianism (RWA), and demographic questions. Factor analyses revealed good fit of the data for a Hate Crime Beliefs Scale-Short Form (HCBS-SF), largely modeled after the HCBS-UK. The three subscales were: denial (i.e., downplaying hate crime severity and low support for hate crime laws), sentencing (i.e., support for more punitive offender punishment), and compassion (i.e., understanding and concern for victims). All subscales possessed acceptable internal consistency. The denial subscale was positively associated with RWA subscale and SDO scores. The sentencing and compassion subscales were significantly negatively correlated with SDO and RWA subscale scores. Republicans held the least supportive views of hate crime laws, concern for victims, and punishment of offenders. Data underscore the importance of evaluating hate crime beliefs in public opinion and other contexts. The HCBS-SF better captures hate crime related attitudes than the previously developed longer version of the HCBS.

Juror perceptions of the stereotypical violent crime defendant.

Stereotypes and prejudice have been shown to bias information processing and decision-making. There are physical traits that are stereotypically associated with criminals (i.e. tattoos, dark skin-tone, facial untrustworthiness) and have been shown to influence juror decision-making. The current research aimed to investigate the effects of tattoos, facial trustworthiness and skin tone on juror case judgments and criminal appearance ratings, while also investigating and accounting for prejudice and motivation to respond without prejudice. Participants (n = 426) were asked to act as mock jurors in a hypothetical assault case by making case judgments and responding to appearance and attitude measures. Criminal appearance ratings indirectly mediated the relationship between physical traits and verdict decisions. Additionally, a significant interaction emerged between skin tone and racial prejudice on criminal appearance ratings, suggesting that the effects of physical traits may depend on individual attitudes. Implications and future directions are discussed.

A Comparison of Juror Decision Making in Race-Based and Sexual Orientation-Based Hate Crime Cases.

Several constructs have been identified as relevant to the juror decision-making process in hate crime cases. However, there is a lack of research on the relationships between these constructs and their variable influence across victim group. The purpose of the current study was to reexamine factors relevant to the juror decision-making process in hate crime cases within a structural model, and across victim group, to gauge the relative strength and explanatory power of various predictors. In the current study, 313 participants sentenced a perpetrator found guilty of a hate crime committed against either a Black man or a gay man; participants also responded to individual difference measures relevant to mock juror hate crime decision making, including prejudice toward the victim's social group. Using path analysis, we explored the role of juror prejudice on sentencing decisions in hate crime cases as well as similarities and differences based on the victimized group. Results indicated that, when the victim was a Black man, modern racism influenced sentencing both directly and indirectly through perpetrator blame attributions, explaining 18% of the variance in sentencing. In contrast, when the victim was a gay man, modern homophobia did not directly predict sentencing, and the overall model explained only 4% of the variance in sentencing, suggesting variables beyond juror prejudice may be better suited to explain juror decision making in sexual orientation-based hate crimes. The current study suggests that the role of juror prejudice in hate crime cases varies as a function of the victimized group and raises questions about the importance of juror prejudice in the sentencing of hate crime cases, particularly antigay prejudice. The importance of blame attributions, social dominance orientation, and juror beliefs regarding penalty enhancements for hate crime cases, as well as policy implications, are also addressed.

Can the effectiveness of eyewitness expert testimony be improved?

For over 35 years, scholars have searched with little success for a legal safeguard that can sensitize jurors to eyewitness testimony. The present study explored whether expert testimony that uses the I-I-Eye method of analyzing eyewitness testimony can improve juror sensitivity to eyewitness evidence. Participants read a trial transcript with no expert testimony, standard expert testimony or expert testimony that used the I-I-Eye method. The two transcripts for the three expert groups had either strong or weak eyewitness testimony. Unlike the control participants, the I-I-Eye expert participants rendered significantly more guilty verdicts in the strong than in the weak case. The standard expert testimony did not affect verdicts even though it increased participants' knowledge of the eyewitness factors. It appears that the I-I-Eye method improved sensitivity because it not only increased participants' knowledge of eyewitness factors, but also explained how to use that knowledge in assessing eyewitness accuracy.

Measuring Attitudes About Hate: Development of the Hate Crime Beliefs Scale.

Employing the federal Hate Crimes Prevention Act (HCPA) of 2009 and other such legislation as a backdrop, the present study evaluated the nature of beliefs about hate-crime legislation, offenders, and victims. In addition, it investigated construct validity (i.e., political beliefs and prejudice) and predictive validity (i.e., blame attribution and sentencing recommendations). A total of 403 U.S. adults completed measures of prejudice and an initial pool of 50 items forming the proposed Hate Crime Beliefs Scale (HCBS). Participants were randomly assigned to read one of four hate-crime vignettes, which varied in regard to type of prejudice (racial-, sexual orientation-, transgender-, and religion-based prejudices) and then responded to blame and sentencing questions. Factor analyses of the HCBS resulted in four sub-scales: Negative Views (i.e., higher scores reflect negative views of legislation and minority group protection), Offender Punishment (i.e., higher scores suggest endorsement of greater punishment), Deterrence (i.e., greater scores denote support for hate-crime legislation as a deterrent of more violence), and Victim Harm (i.e., higher scores reflect pro-victim attitudes). Greater pro-legislation and pro-victim beliefs were related to liberal political beliefs and less prejudicial attitudes, with some exceptions. Controlling for a number of demographic, situational, and attitudinal covariates, the Negative Views sub-scale displayed predictive utility, such that more negative views of legislation/minority group protection were associated with elevated victim blame, as well as lower perpetrator blame and sentencing recommendations. Results are discussed in the context of hate-crime research and policy, with additional implications considered for trial strategy, modern prejudice, and blame attribution theory.

Concurrently examining unrealistic absolute and comparative optimism: Temporal shifts, individual-difference and event-specific correlates, and behavioural outcomes.

Researchers have spent considerable effort examining unrealistic absolute optimism and unrealistic comparative optimism, yet there is a lack of research exploring them concurrently. This longitudinal study repeatedly assessed unrealistic absolute and comparative optimism within a performance context over several months to identify the degree to which they shift as a function of proximity to performance and performance feedback, their associations with global individual difference and event-specific factors, and their link to subsequent behavioural outcomes. Results showed similar shifts in unrealistic absolute and comparative optimism based on proximity to performance and performance feedback. Moreover, increases in both types of unrealistic optimism were associated with better subsequent performance beyond the effect of prior performance. However, several differences were found between the two forms of unrealistic optimism in their associations with global individual difference factors and event-specific factors, highlighting the distinctiveness of the two constructs.

Mock Juror Perceptions of Rape Victims: Impact of Case Characteristics and Individual Differences.

The purpose of the present study was to examine mock juror perceptions of rape victims based on the sex of the offender and victim (male offender/female victim vs. female offender/male victim), relationship to the offender (stranger vs. acquaintance vs. intimate partner), revictimization (no revictimization vs. revictimization), and individual differences in rape myth acceptance (RMA) and life history strategy (LHS). Participants (N = 332) read a vignette describing a forcible rape scenario and completed victim and perpetrator blame scales, the Mini-K, and a gender-neutral Rape Myth Acceptance Scale. Results indicated increased victim blame in revictimization conditions, as well as female offender/male victim conditions. A significant mediation effect of LHS on victim blame through the indirect effect of RMA was found, which is predicted from life history theory. Implications of these findings are discussed.

Attorney beliefs concerning scientific evidence and expert witness credibility.

Expert witnesses play a pivotal role in offering a variety of scientific evidence at trial. Although judges are the ultimate gatekeepers of what constitutes valid scientific evidence, attorneys play an important part in determining what evidence is presented to the court. Employing experimental and descriptive analyses, the present study sought to address gaps in the attorney/expert witness literature by addressing three questions: One) To what extent do attorneys prefer forensic or social scientific evidence and experts?, Two) How knowledgeable are attorneys concerning empirically-supported indicators of expert credibility?, Three) What do attorneys believe concerning the frequency and nature of expert errors in their own trials relative to others? Results showed that attorneys prefer forensic science evidence and experts compared to social/psychological counterparts. Moreover, attorneys displayed considerable knowledge of factors that will impact perceived expert credibility. In particular, attorneys value perceived expert trustworthiness, communication skills, content of testimony/reports, perceived expert knowledge, and years and type of expert experience. Finally, attorneys displayed a consistent and strong self-serving bias pattern, such that they believe expert errors occur more much frequently in other attorneys' cases compared to their own. Implications are discussed with respect to vetting expert witnesses, scientific evidence/errors and wrongful conviction, and training for attorneys.

Perceptions of, and assistance provided to, a hypothetical rape victim: differences between rape disclosure recipients and nonrecipients.

OBJECTIVE: Undergraduate rape disclosure recipients' and nonrecipients' sociodemographic and life experience variables, attitudes towards rape, and responses to a hypothetical rape disclosure were compared to determine differences between them. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred ninety-two undergraduates at 3 universities participated in this online survey between November 2011 and April 2012. METHODS: Participants reported on their rape myth acceptance (RMA) and personal direct and indirect (ie, disclosure receipt) experiences with sexual assault. Participants also responded to a hypothetical rape disclosure. RESULTS: Disclosure recipients were more likely to report a victimization history, and less confusion and perceived ineffectiveness in helping the hypothetical victim. RMA and nonrecipient status predicted perceived victim responsibility; these variables and childhood victimization predicted confusion about helping. RMA also predicted perceived ineffectiveness of one's helping behaviors. Victimization history and female gender predicted victim empathy. CONCLUSIONS: These findings can inform sexual assault-related programming for undergraduates through the provision of targeted assistance and corrective information.

Developmental trends in the process of constructing own- and other-race facial composites.

The current study examined developmental differences from the age of 5 to 18 in the creation process of own- and other-race facial composites. In addition, it considered how differences in the creation process affect similarity ratings. Participants created two composites (one own- and one other-race) from memory. The complexity of the composite creation process was recorded during Phase One. In Phase Two, a separate group of participants rated the composites for similarity to the corresponding target face. Results support the cross-race effect, developmental differences (based on composite creators) in similarity ratings, and the importance of the creation process for own- and other-race facial composites. Together, these findings suggest that as children get older the process through which they create facial composites becomes more complex and their ability to create facial composites improves. Increased complexity resulted in higher rated composites. Results are discussed from a psycho-legal perspective.

A mock juror investigation of blame attribution in the punishment of hate crime perpetrators.

We examined blame attribution as a moderator of perceptions of hate crimes against gay, African American, and transgender victims. Participants were 510 Texas jury panel members. Results of vignette-based crime scenarios showed that victim blame displayed significant negative, and perpetrator blame significant positive, effects on sentencing recommendations. Also as hypothesized, victim and perpetrator blame moderated the effect of support for hate crime legislation. Interaction patterns suggested that both types of blame attribution influence sentencing recommendations, but only for participants disagreeing with hate crime legislation. Three-way interactions with victim type also emerged, indicating that the effects of both types of blame attribution show particular influences when the victim is gay, as opposed to transgender or African American. Implications for attribution theory, hate crime policy, and jury selection are discussed.

Why the impact? Negative affective change as a mediator of the effects of victim impact statements.

Victim impact statements (VISs) represent a contentious legal and psychological point of debate. Current knowledge concerning the influence of VISs on jurors' emotional states and views of offenders is unclear. Using a sexual assault case, the present study attempted to disentangle these points of debate in the body of existing literature by (a) examining the direct influences of the presence of a VIS and juror Need for Affect (NFA) on sentencing recommendations, (b) assessing overall negative affective change as a mediating mechanism of these predictors, and (c) if mediation was present, identifying specific negative emotions that explain the effects of negative affective change. Results showed that presence of a VIS and a greater proclivity to approach emotions were associated with significantly greater sentencing recommendations. Moreover, change in negative affect mediated the effects of NFA approach and VIS exposure. Examination of changes in specific negative emotions revealed that increases in being upset and nervous mediated the impact of VIS condition; in addition, increases in hostility mediated the effect of NFA approach. Results are discussed with regard to emotion-based decision making of potential jurors, applications to trial process, and future research in the area.