Steven James Watson

Using Virtual Reality to recreate environmental cues present during encoding to generate virtual context reinstatement (VCR) may be a promising tool to enhance eyewitness memory. However, VCR’s effectiveness relative to mental (MCR) and physical (PCR) context reinstatement remains unclear, as do mechanisms underlying its potential effects. The present study employed a between-participants experimental design to compare the effectiveness of VCR with PCR and MCR for supporting eyewitness recall while examining the role of cognitive load, stress, rapport, and neurodiversity in retrieval across reinstatement methods. Participants (N = 52) directly observed a mock crime and completed a delayed recall task (2-7 days) under one of three reinstatement conditions (MCR, PCR, VCR). Results provided preliminary evidence that VCR is as effective as traditional methods. Cognitive load was negatively associated with correct recall, suggesting retrieval demands play an important role in eyewitness recall irrespective of reinstatement modality. Qualitative findings further suggested that retrieval success depends on active engagement with reinstatement cues and the management of cognitive demands during recall, including attentional control and retrieval monitoring. Together, these findings provide preliminary support for VCR as a suitable alternative when PCR is not feasible and emphasizes the role of cognitive load in eyewitness memory retrieval.

Online, criminal organizations regularly use discursive legitimation strategies to influence public opinion about their criminal activities to justify their acts and minimize persecution. Yet, little is known about what types of strategies are effective in the case of criminal organizations. This study addresses this gap by identifying and quantifying how distinct discursive strategies impact citizens’ legitimacy judgment, their attribution of blame for societal harm associated with criminal activity and punitive intent. Using a discrete choice experiment conducted with representative citizen samples in Germany (n=301, Obs.=1,505) and the United Kingdom (n=350, Obs.=1,750), the study shows that distinct strategies can significantly impact citizens’ judgment about the legitimacy of criminal activity, their attribution of responsibility, accountability, and punitive intent. Cognitive and moral legitimation strategies – such as discrediting victims and legitimate institutions, but also signaling transparency and moralizing criminal action – are most effective. Social media amplifies, and higher societal harm reduces the influence of legitimation strategies. These novel insights advance the discourse on organizational legitimacy in the post-factual age of digital communication as well as scholarship on accountability and public opinion on criminal activity, helping practitioners and policy makers understand and counteract legitimation efforts by criminal organizations.

This study examines how organizations involved in criminal activities try to publicly legitimize their actions by using discursive legitimation strategies. Often involving moral neutralization and blame deflection techniques, these discursive strategies present organizations involved in criminal activities as virtuous and justified to evade punishment and undermine public support for law enforcement. Although discursive legitimation strategies result in societal harm, little is known about what types of strategies exist for criminal activities, how they differ, and whether they change legitimacy judgments. Based on a framework that integrates the communicative aspects of legitimation and strategic ambiguity, this scoping review identifies, categorizes, and synthesizes the empirical evidence on discursive legitimation strategies used by organizations involved in criminal activities. We identify 10 strategies that are conceptually linked with different legitimacy dimensions and develop testable propositions about how five distinct mechanisms—licensing, contestation, enculturation, neutralization, and cleansing—are used to create strategic ambiguity. This study elevates our understanding of discursive legitimation strategies used to justify illegitimate and criminal practices to sway public opinion and informs practice on how to develop countermeasures and strengthen societal resilience against criminal manipulation.

Research indicates autistic defendants are treated more leniently than non-autistic defendants. However, it is unclear whether this is caused by positive perceptions of autistic people, or because autism is a relevant mitigating factor. Across two studies we tested how mock jurors evaluated autistic defendants in autism relevant and irrelevant criminal cases to better understand when and why autistic defendants receive leniency. Further, we provided some of the participants with educational information about ASD allowing these participants to recognise autism as a relevant mitigation for criminal cases for which autistic traits can be a risk factor (assault and stalking cases, but not burglary cases).Defendants with ASD only received lower sentences when autism was a relevant mitigation (assault and stalking), but not when autism was irrelevant (burglary). Thus, participants did not simply give preferential treatment to autistic defendants, but considered how ASD was related to the offense. However, providing information about autism weakened these effects, indicating educating people about autism may not always benefit autistic defendants.Our study highlights the importance of nuanced messaging about autism. While explaining how autistic characteristics can explain criminal behaviour may reduce perceptions of criminal responsibility, it may also imply greater dangerousness or risk of reoffending.

Emotional mimicry, an unconscious nonverbal response, may reveal how people react to truthful versus deceptive communication. Mimicry typically increases when individuals seek connection but may be suppressed when deception reduces liking and affiliation. Emotional tone further shapes this process: positive expressions promote alignment, whereas negative ones can evoke scepticism or discomfort. This study examined how message truthfulness and emotional framing influence emotional mimicry in receivers. Using Automated Facial Expression Analysis (AFEA) in a 2 × 2 within-subjects design, 33 participants viewed 16 video messages in which four speakers delivered truthful or deceptive stories with positive or negative valence. Facial expressions were recorded and analysed to quantify emotional mimicry. Emotional mimicry was significantly lower for deceptive than for truthful messages across both positive and negative content, consistent with expectations. The decrease was strongest for positively framed deceptions, indicating that deception disrupts alignment most when positivity would otherwise encourage connection. Negative messages elicited weaker emotional mimicry overall, regardless of veracity, also in line with predictions. In contrast, presuppositions about deception were unrelated to emotional mimicry or veracity judgments, contrary to expectations. These findings suggest that emotional mimicry is not a straightforward cue to deception but an indicator of affective attunement shaped by authenticity and emotional tone. Mimicry appears driven more by emotional than cognitive processes, offering insight into unconscious receiver responses. The use of AFEA underscores both the promise and the limitations of automated tools for studying dynamic interpersonal behaviour.

Purpose: Rapport enhances both the quantity and quality of information in investigative interviews and is recommended by multiple frameworks and training manuals. As interviewers are trained to associate rapport with more detailed responses, they are likely to assess rapport based on the amount of information provided. However, this evaluation can be skewed by the suspect's verbosity—more elaborate accounts by the suspect may be mistaken for interview success, even when no useful information is shared. With this study, we tested whether suspect verbosity influenced observer‐rapport and judgement of perceived suspect guilt. Methods: Participants ( N = 200) listened to one of three audio recordings of a mock police interview, within a between‐groups design (Suspect verbosity: Low vs. Medium vs. High), and afterwards were asked to rate rapport between the suspect and the interviewer and suspect guilt. Results: Our results show that rapport ratings statistically significantly differ between the Low and High verbosity conditions. Participants also perceived suspects as being less likely to be guilty if they spoke more words, even when this speech does not provide investigation‐relevant information. Conclusion: If individuals base rapport and guilt judgements on verbosity rather than an objective assessment of the evidence, it may lead to suboptimal investigative outcomes. Therefore, it is important to further investigate how interviewer training may impact our findings.