Lynn Weiher

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.

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.

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.

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 = 184) 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. Participant’s 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 sub-optimal investigative outcomes. Therefore, it is important to further investigate how interviewer training may impact our findings.

Adaptability refers to cognitive, behavioural and emotional adjustments that assist in effectively responding to novel and uncertain situations. It is acknowledged as a key attribute of the successful management of dynamic interpersonal interactions. Yet, adaptability remains largely unstudied in the field of psychology and law. Here, we take the first steps to fill this research gap. In Study 1 , university students ( n = 30) acted as ‘agents’ that had to complete three ‘undercover missions’ that required an adaptive response. Adaptability was measured through a self‐report scale. In Study 2 , practitioners ( n = 22), experienced with covert policing, watched recordings of the undercover missions from Experiment 1. The practitioners rated the adaptive responses of the agents, as well as their ability to attain the mission objectives. The findings showed that our experimental set‐up successfully elicited adaptive behaviour. Practitioners’ ratings of adaptability were strongly related to their ratings of trustworthiness, rapport and belief in whether the agent would accomplish their missions, but not with actual mission success. The results highlight the potential importance of adaptability for law enforcement contexts.