Advertisement

Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology

, Volume 30, Issue 1, pp 38–49 | Cite as

Is Truth Stranger Than Fiction? Bizarre Details and Credibility Assessment

  • Kristine A. Peace
  • Krista L. Brower
  • Alexandra Rocchio
Article

Abstract

A series of three studies were designed to examine the influence of bizarreness on perceived witness credibility by mock-jurors. Study 1 investigated the relationship between bizarre details (baseline, mild, moderate, extreme), crime perspectives (victim/witness), and fantasy proneness on credibility assessment of eyewitness statements. Study 2 examined bizarreness level according to the number of bizarre details present (5, 10, or 15) and Study 3 observed the relationship between bizarreness level and the type of detail (description, action, event). The results for all three studies indicated that credibility was negatively related to level of bizarreness. In addition, action and event details were less believable relative to perpetrator descriptions, especially when bizarreness increased. Concurrently, ratings of belief in events as reported, credibility, and plausibility decreased as the number of bizarre details increased. These findings suggest that certain events may be “too strange to be true”.

Keywords

eyewitness testimony credibility bizarre details fantasy proneness 

References

  1. Akehurst L, Vrij A (1999) Creating suspects in police interviews. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 29:192–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aleman A, Haan EHF (2004) Fantasy proneness, mental imagery and reality monitoring. Personality and Individual Differences 36:1747–1754CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ask K, Landström S (2010) Why emotions matter: Expectancy violation and affective response mediate the emotional victim effect. Law and Human Behavior 34:392–401CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bell BE, Loftus EF (1988) Degree of detail of eyewitness testimony and mock juror judgments. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 18:1171–1192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bell BE, Loftus EF (1989) Trivial persuasion in the courtroom: The power of (a few) minor details. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 56:669–679CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Bottoms BL, Goodman GS (1994) Perceptions of children’s credibility in sexual assault cases. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 24:702–732CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brewer N, Potter R, Fisher RP, Bond N, Luszcz MA (1999) Beliefs and data on the relationship between consistency and accuracy of eyewitness testimony. Applied Cognitive Psychology 13:297–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brillon Y, Louis-Guerin C, Lamarche MC (1984) Attitudes of the Canadian public toward crime policies. Ministry of the Solicitor General Canada, Ottawa, ONGoogle Scholar
  9. Burgoon JK, Newton DA (1991) Applying a social meaning model to relational messages of conversational involvement: Comparing participant and observer perspectives. Southern Communication Journal 56:96–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Christianson SA, Hubinette B (1993) Hands up! A study of witnesses’ emotional reactions and memories associated with bank robberies. Applied Cognitive Psychology 7:365–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Colwell K, Hiscock-Anisman C, Memon A, Rachel A, Colwell L (2007) Vividness and spontaneity of statement detail characteristics as predictors of witness credibility. American Journal of Forensic Psychology 25:4–30Google Scholar
  12. Conte JR (1994) Child sexual abuse: Awareness and backlash. Future of Children 4:226–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. DePaulo BM, Lindsay JJ, Malone BE, Muhlenbruck L, Charlton K, Cooper H (2003) Cues to deception. Psychological Bulletin 129:74–118CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Dumas R, Testé B (2006) The influence of criminal facial stereotypes on juridic judgments. Swiss Journal of Psychology 65:237–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Egeth SA (1993) What we do not know about eyewitness identification. American Psychologist 48:577–580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Einstein GO, McDaniel MA, Lackey S (1989) Bizarre imagery, interference, and distinctiveness. Journal of Experimental Psychology 15:137–146PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Fisher RP, Vrij A, Leins DA (2013) Does testimonial inconsistency indicate memory inaccuracy and deception? Beliefs, empirical research, and theory. In: Cooper BS, Griesel D, Ternes M (eds) Applied issues in investigative interviewing, eyewitness memory, and credibility assessment. Springer, New York, NY, pp 173–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Goodman GS, Golding JM, Haith MM (1984) Juror’s reactions to child witnesses. Journal of Social Issues 40:139–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Holcomb MJ, Jacquin KM (2007) Juror perceptions of child eyewitness testimony in sexual abuse trail. Journal of Childhood Sexual Abuse 16:79–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hough P, Rogers P (2007) Individuals who report being abducted by aliens: Investigating the differences in fantasy proneness, emotional intelligence and the big five personality factors. Imagination, Cognition and Personality 27:139–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kalbfleisch PJ (1990) Listening for deception: The effects of medium on accuracy of detection. In: Bostrom RN (ed) Listening behavior: Measurement and application. New York, NY, GuilfordGoogle Scholar
  22. Kaufmann G, Drevland GB, Wessel E, Oversked G, Magnussen S (2003) The importance of being earnest: Displayed emotions and witness credibility. Applied Cognitive Psychology 17:21–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Macrae CN, Shepherd JW (1989) Do criminal stereotypes mediate juridic judgements? British Journal of Social Psychology 28:189–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McCloskey M, Egeth H (1983) Eyewitness identification: What can a psychologist tell a jury? American Psychologist 38:550–563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McDaniel MA, Dornburg CC, Guynn MJ (2005) Disentangling encoding versus retrieval explanations of the bizarreness effect: Implications for distinctiveness. Memory and Cognition 33:270–279CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Merckelbach H (2004) Telling a good story: Fantasy proneness and the quality of fabricated memories. Personality and Individual Differences 27:1371–1382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Merckelbach H, Horselenberg R, Muris P (2001) The creative experiences questionnaire (CEQ): A brief self-report measure of fantasy proneness. Personality and Individual Differences 31:987–995CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pennington N, Hastie R (1988) Explanation-based decision making: Effects of memory-structure on judgment. Journal of Experimental Psychology 14:521–533Google Scholar
  29. Pickel KL, Karam TJ, Warner TC (2009) Jurors’ responses to unusual inadmissible evidence. Criminal Justice and Behaviour 36:466–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Peace KA, Brower KL, Shudra RD (2012) Fact or fiction?: Discriminating true and false allegations of victimization. In: Hutcherson AN (ed) Psychology of victimization. Nova Science Publishers, Inc., New York, NY, pp 1–79Google Scholar
  31. Peace, K. A., & Ensslen, K. (2010, May). The stranger in the alley stole my purse!: The influence of schemas and repeated recall on memory. Poster presented at the Banff Annual Seminar in Cognitive Science (BASICS) Conference. Banff, AB, Canada.Google Scholar
  32. Potter R, Brewer N (1999) Perceptions of witness behaviour-accuracy relationships held by police, lawyers, and mock-jurors. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law 6:97–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pozzulo JD, Dempsey JL (2009) Witness factors and their influence on jurors’ perceptions and verdicts. Criminal Justice and Behaviour 36:923–934CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Roberts JV (1992) Public opinion, crime, and criminal justice. Crime and Justice 16:99–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Reyes RM, Thompson WC, Bower GH (1980) Judgmental biases resulting from differing availabilities of arguments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 39:2–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Saladin M, Saper Z, Breen L (1988) Perceived attractiveness and attributions of criminality: What is beautiful is not criminal. Canadian Journal of Criminology 30:251–259Google Scholar
  37. Shedler J, Manis M (1986) Can the availability heuristic explain the vividness effects? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51:26–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Steller M, Köhnken G (1989) Criteria based content analysis. In: Raskin DC (ed) Psychological method in criminal investigation and evidence. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, pp 217–245Google Scholar
  39. Strömwall LA, Granhag PA (2003) Affecting the perception of verbal cues to deception. Applied Cognitive Psychology 17:35–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Singler JN, Couch JV (2002) Eyewitness testimony and the jury verdict. North American Journal of Psychology 4:143–148Google Scholar
  41. Vrij A (2008) Detecting lies and deceit: Pitfalls and opportunities. Wiley, San Francisco, CAGoogle Scholar
  42. Vrij A, Edward K, Bull R (2001) Stereotypical verbal and nonverbal responses while deceiving others. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 27:899–909CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wechsler DA (1945) Standardized memory scale for clinical use. Journal of Psychology 19:87–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wilson SC, Barber TX (1983) Fantasy-prone personality: Implications for understanding imagery, hypnosis, and parapsychological phenomena. In: Sheikh AA (ed) Imagery: Current theory, research, and application. Wiley, New York, NY, pp 340–387Google Scholar
  45. Yarmey AD (1993) Stereotypes and recognition memory for faces and voices of good guys and bad guys. Applied Cognitive Psychology 7:419–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Zaparniuk J, Yuille JC, Taylor S (1995) Assessing the credibility of true and false statements. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 18:343–352CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kristine A. Peace
    • 1
  • Krista L. Brower
    • 1
  • Alexandra Rocchio
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyGrant MacEwan UniversityEdmontonCanada

Personalised recommendations