Impacto persuasivo del testimonio seguro e inseguro¿dos caras de un mismo fenómeno?

  1. Prieto Ederra, Ángel
  2. Sobral Fernández, Jorge
Revista:
Psicothema

ISSN: 0214-9915

Ano de publicación: 2003

Volume: 15

Número: 2

Páxinas: 167-171

Tipo: Artigo

Outras publicacións en: Psicothema

Resumo

Jurados simulados leen la transcripción de un juicio en el que la principal prueba en contra del acusado es la declaración de un testigo presencial que identifica al acusado con alta o baja seguridad. Un tercer grupo lee un testimonio en el que el testigo no afirma explícitamente su seguridad al identificar. Se analiza el impacto de la seguridad sobre la credibilidad del testimonio y los veredictos. La seguridad al identificar se asocia con percepciones de mayor credibilidad y sinceridad, mientras que la inseguridad produce cambios en la percepción de la competencia del testigo. Los resultados se discuten en términos de las teorías de comunicación persuasiva.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Bell, B.A. y Loftus, E.F. (1988). Degree of detail of eyewitness testimony and mock juror judgments. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 1.171-1.192.
  • Bell, B.A. y Loftus, E.F. (1989). Trivial persuasion in the courtroom: the power of (a few) minor details. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 170-177.
  • Berman, G.L. y Cutler, B.L. (1996). Effect of inconsistencies in eyewitness testimony on mock-juror decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 177.
  • Berman, G.L., Narby, D.J. y Cutler, B.L. (1995). Effects of inconsistent eyewitness statements on mock juror’s evaluations of the eyewitness, perceptions of defendant culpability and verdicts. Law and Human Behavior, 19, 79-88.
  • Bothwell, R.K., Deffenbacher, K.A. y Brigham, J.C. (1987). Correlation of eyewitness accuracy and confidence: the optimality hypothesis revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 691-695.
  • Bradfield, A.L., Wells, G.L. y Orson, E.A. (2000). The damaging effect of confirming feedback on the relation between eyewitness certainty and identification accuracy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 112-120.
  • Brewer, N. y Burke, A. (2002). Effects of testimonial inconsistencies and eyewitness confidence on mock-juror judgments. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 353-364.
  • Brigham, J.C. y Bothwell, R.K. (1983). The ability of prospective jurors to estimate the accuracy of eyewitness identifications. Law and Human Behavior, 7, 10-30.
  • Catano, V.M. (1980). Impact of simulated jurors of testimony as a function of non-evidential characteristics of witness and defendant. Psychological Reports, 46, 343-348.
  • Chaiken, S. (1982). The heuristic/systematic processing distinction in persuasion. Presentado en el Symposium on Automatic Processing. Nashville.
  • Chaiken, S. (1987). The heuristic model of persuasion. En M.P. Zanna, J.M. Olson y C. P.Herman. Social influence: the Ontario Symposium. [Vol. 5]. Hillsdale, NJ, Erlbaum.
  • Cutler, B.L. y Penrod, S.D. (1995). Mistaken identification: the eyewitness, pschology and the law. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Deffenbacher, K.A. (1980). Eyewitness accuracy and confidence: can we infer anything about their relationship? Law and Human Behavior, 4, 243-260.
  • Devlin, H.L.P. (1976). Report to the secretary of state for the home departament of the departamental committee on evidence of identification in criminal cases. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.
  • Eagly, A.H., Chaiken, S. y Wood, W. (1981). An attribution analysis of persuasion. En J.H. Harvey, W. Ickes y R.F. Kidd, R.F. New directions in attribution research [Vol. 3]. Hillsdale, NJ, Erlbaum
  • Erickson, B., Lind, E.A., Johnson, B.C. y O’Barr, W.M. (1978). Speech style and impresion formation in a court setting: the effects of «powerful» and «powerless» speech. Jounal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 266-279.
  • Ibabe-Erostarbe, I. (2000). Memoria de testigos: Recuerdo de acciones e informacion descriptive de un suceso. Psicothema, 12, 574-578.
  • Kalven, H. y Zeisel, H. (1966). The american jury. Boston: Litle Brown.
  • Leippe, M.R. (1980). Effects of integrative memorial and cognitive processes on the correspondence of eyewitness accuracy and confidence. Law and Human Behavior, 4, 261-274.
  • Leippe, M.R. (1994). The appraisal of eyewitness testimony. En D.F. Ross, J.D. Read y M.P. Toglia (Eds.), Adult eyewitness testimony (pp. 385-418). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Leippe, M.R., Manion, A.P. y Romanczyk, A. (1992). Eyewitness persuasion: how and how well do fact finders judge the accuracy of adults’ and childen’ memory reports? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 181-197.
  • Lindsay, R.C.L. (1994). Evaluations of eyewitness performance: juror’s verdicts do not follow from their beliefs. En D.F. Ross, J.D. Read y M.P. Toglia (Eds.), Adult eyewitness testimony (pp. 362-384). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Lindsay, R.C.L., Wells, G.L. y Rumpel, C.M. (1981). Can people detect eyewitness identification accuracy within and across situations? Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 79-89.
  • Loftus, E.F. (1979). Eyewitness testimony. Cambridge, Massachussetts: Harvard University Press.
  • Loftus, E.F. (1983). Silence is not golden. American Psychologist, 38, 564-571.
  • Ludwig, K. y Fontaine, G. (1978). Effect of witness expertise and manner of delivery of testimony on verdicts of simulated jurors. Psychological Reports, 42, 955-961.
  • Luus, C.A.E. y Wells, G.L. (1994). Eyewitness identification evidence. En D.F. Ross, J.D. Read y M.P. Toglia (Eds.), Adult eyewitness testimony (pp. 348-362). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Miller, G.R. y Burgoon, J.K. (1994). Factors affecting assessments of witness credibility. En R. Bray y N. Kerr (Eds.), The psychology of the courtroom (pp. 169-195). New York: Plenum Press.
  • Mira, J.J. y Diges, M. (1986). Procesos intervinients en la evidencia de testigos. En F. Jiménez Burillo y M. Clemente (Eds.), Psicología social y sistema penal (pp. 159-184). Madrid: Alianza.
  • Munro, F.M. y Carlin, M.T. (2002). Witness competency-Truthfulness and reliability assessment: The role of the psychologist. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 7, 15-23.
  • Nigro, G.N., Buckley, M.A., Hill, D.E. y Nelson, J. (1989). When juries «hear» children testify: the effects of eyewitness age and speech style on juror’s perceptions of testimony. En S.J.Ceci, D.F. Ross y M.P. Toglia (Eds.), Perspectives on children’s testimony (pp. 57-70). New York: Springer-Verlag.
  • O’Barr, W.M. (1982). Linguistic evidence: language, power, and strategy in the courtroom. New York: Academic Press.
  • Penrod, S.D., Loftus, E.F. y Winkler, J. (1982). The reliability of eyewitness testimony: a psychological perspective. En R. Bray y N. Kerr (Eds.), The psychology of the courtroom (pp. 119-168). New York: Plenum Press.
  • Prieto, A., Diges, M. y Bernal, M. (1990). Investigaciones sobre la exactitud del testigo presencial. En J. Sobral y R. Arce (Eds.), Psicología social en la sala de justicia. Barcelona: Paidós.
  • Prieto, A. y Sobral, J. (1990). Testificación y veredictos de jurados legos: un estudio experimental. Actas del II Congreso del Colegio Oficial de Psicólogos (pp. 20-25). Alicante.
  • Prieto, A., Sobral, J. y Diges, M. (1992). Evaluación del testimonio: una revisión de la explicación de metamemoria. Psicologemas, 6, 263-287.
  • Seidel, S. y Kimble, C.E. (1990). Speech and loudness of vocal responses indicate confidence. Presentado a la reunión de la American Psychological Society. Dallas.
  • Sherer, K.R., London, H. y Wolf, J.J. (1973). The voice of confidence: paralinguistic cues and audience evaluation. Journal of Research in Personality, 7, 31-44.
  • Sobral, J. y Prieto, A. (1994). Presentación, discurso y persuasión en testigos. Revista de Psicología Social, 9, 13-18.
  • Sobral, J. y Prieto, A. (1993). Persuasión y testificación: una (re)visión social de la credibilidad del testimonio. Psicothema, 5, 393-410.
  • Sporer, S.L., Penrod, S.D., Read, J.D. y Cutler, B.L. (1996). Choosing, confidence and accuracy: a meta-analysis of the confidence-accuracy relationship in eyewitness identification studies. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 315-327.
  • Wells, G.L., Ferguson, T.J. y Lindsay, R.C.L. (1981). The tractability of eyewitnes confidence and its implications for triers of facts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 688-696.
  • Wells, G.L. y Lindsay, R.C.L. (1983). How do people infer the accuracy of eyewitness memory? studies on performance and a metamemory analysis. En S. Lloyd-Bostock y B.R. Clifford (Eds.), Evaluating witness evidence: recent psychological research and new perspectives. Chichester: Wiley & Sons.
  • Wells, G.L., Lindsay, R.C.L. y Ferguson, T.J. (1979). Accuracy, confidence and juror perceptions in eyewitness identification. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 440-448.
  • Wells, G.L., Lindsay, R.C.L. y Tousignant, J.P. (1980). Effects of expert psychological advice on human performance in judging the validity of eyewitness testimony. Law and Human Behavior, 4, 275-285.
  • Wells, G.L. y Murray, D.M. (1984). Eyewitness confidence. En G.L. Wells y E.F. Loftus (Eds.), Eyewitness testimony: psychological perspectives (pp. 155-170). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Whitley, B.E. y Greenberg, M.S. (1986). The role of eyewitness confidence in juror perceptions of credibility. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16, 387-409.