Mock Jurors' Perceptions of Child Witnesses: The Impact of Judicial Warning.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study examined the impact of a judicial warning, witness age, and the method of testimony presentation on mock jurors' perceptions of credibility of witnesses and accused, and on guilty verdicts. The participants were 435 undergraduate university students who listened to an audio-taped summary of a theft trial followed by abbreviated instructions to the jury. Witness age was 7, 10, or 23, the jury warning was either present or absent when witnesses were children, and the testimony by the prosecution eyewitness and accused were either presented or summarized. For the taped testimony conditions, the mock witnesses and the accused read a fact pattern describing the events in the case and were audio-taped as they answered a series of questions, which constituted direct and cross-examination. The testimony of the 7-year-old child, compared to the 10-year-old, was associated with lower cognitive competence and higher suggestibility, but also with higher accuracy of recall (lower mistaken recollection) and lower credibility of accused. The pattern of results for appraisal of the older child was more similar to that of an adult witness. The young adult was judged to be less trustworthy than children of either age. While the presence of a warning had no impact on guilty verdicts when a 7-year-old was a witness, there were fewer guilty verdicts when a witness was 10 years old. Participants also made fewer guilty verdicts when a young adult's testimony, compared to conditions involving child witnesses, was presented, but not when it was summarized.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".