Study 3 - non-verbal cues in sincere testimonies
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Prior research has extensively examined witnesses’ non-verbal cues in legal contexts, primarily focusing on the association between these cues and deception. Yet, findings reveal only weak and small effects between such cues and deception (e.g., DePaulo et al., 2003; Hartwig & Bond, 2011; Vrij & Granhag, 2012). Luke (2019) further cautions that these correlations might be overstated due to publication bias and methodological limitations, underscoring the challenges in distinguishing true effects from statistical artifacts in deception studies. Despite these insights, a notable gap remains in understanding how non-verbal cues relate to accuracy in honestly reported witness testimonies, an area that has received less attention. Honestly testimonies refer to recollections from memory without the intent to deceive. Currently, the impact of non-verbal cues on the accuracy and credibility of witness statements remains poorly understood. Krahmer and Swerts (2005) demonstrated that visual cues, such as changes in facial expressions, are indicative of a speaker's Feeling of Knowing (FOK), thus signaling potential uncertainty. These findings suggest that such cues could affect perceptions of a witness’ credibility in legal contexts, as they complement verbal communication and influence the observer's interpretation and understanding of the testimony (Esteve-Gibert & Guellaï, 2018). However, using non-verbal cues for credibility assessments in legal settings is fraught with challenges. For example, Denault et al. (2023) reveal that Canadian judges do rely on such cues—like eye contact, gestures, and tone—for credibility judgments, despite no empirical evidence of the reliability of these cues. This reliance, amidst the scientific uncertainties about interpreting these cues, underscores the problematic nature of their use in critical legal decisions. Taken together, observable markers that could differentiate accurate from inaccurate statements in honest testimonies are of both theoretical and practical interest, yet such distinctions have not been investigated before. This study builds on the findings of Raver et al. (2023), which revealed that non-native speaking witnesses reported lower confidence and were perceived as less credible than native speakers, even though their testimonies were equally accurate. This complexity suggests a detailed examination is needed. Therefore, we will set out to investigate if (H1) non-verbal cues are associated with the accuracy of statements, investigating whether display of such cues can reliably predict whether statements are correct or incorrect, and if so (H2) whether this differs between native vs. non-native speaking witnesses. Also, we will examine (H3) the relation between non-verbal cues and witnesses’ self-reported confidence, assessing how these cues correlate with the confidence witnesses report in their own statements. Lastly, (H4) we will investigate how the display of non-verbal cues relate to the perceived credibility of the witness by independent observers.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,008 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,009 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,066 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».