In judicial practice, witness testimony, jury judgment, and case handler decisions are often affected by various psychological factors. As an interdisciplinary between psychology and law, legal psychology provides important theoretical support for judicial justice by studying these psychological phenomena. Among them, a series of classic psychological effects play a key role in case investigation, evidence determination and judicial ruling. This article will introduce in detail three famous effects in legal psychology - the cross-race effect, weapon focus effect and confidence-accurate assumption effect, to help everyone understand their principles, applications and limitations.
Cross-race effect
What is the cross-race effect?
Cross-race effect, also known as 'interracial face recognition bias', refers to the phenomenon that people recognize faces of the same race (or race they are familiar with) when identifying faces, usually higher than those of faces of different races (or unfamiliar races). Simply put, it means 'remember your own faces, but you can't tell the difference between outsiders.'
Background source
Observations on this phenomenon can be traced back to the 19th century, but systematic psychological research began in the 1970s. Early researchers found that witnesses had significantly higher errors in identifying suspects in cases involving interracial racial selves. For example, in judicial cases in European and American countries, the probability of white witnesses mistakenly identifying black suspects, or the probability of black witnesses mistakenly identifying white suspects, are significantly higher than that of homoeconomic identification. With the development of globalization and interracial exchanges are becoming increasingly frequent, the impact of this effect in judicial practice has also attracted more and more attention.
Core Principle
The core principles of the cross-race effect are closely related to human cognitive habits and experience accumulation. From the perspective of cognitive psychology, people will come into contact with a large number of faces of the same race during their growth, and the brain will gradually form a 'cognitive template' for faces of the same race, which can more efficiently extract facial features (such as skin color, facial contour, facial features proportion, etc.). For heterogeneous faces, due to less contact and lack of sufficient 'template' support for the brain, it is easy to regard the faces of different individuals as 'similar wholes', and it is difficult to distinguish the differences in details. In addition, social classification psychology will also work - people tend to classify alien races as 'outgroups', and their attention to and processing depth will naturally decrease.
Experimental basis
In the classic experiment, researchers asked white subjects and black subjects to identify a series of homoethnic and heteroethnic faces respectively. The results showed that the average accuracy of white subjects in recognition of white faces was 85%, and the accuracy of black faces was reduced to 65%. The opposite was that of black subjects, with an accuracy of 83% of black faces and 68% of white faces. Subsequent experiments also found that after increasing the frequency of contact with heterogeneous faces, the recognition accuracy will be significantly improved, further verifying the impact of 'experience accumulation' on this effect.
Realistic application
In judicial practice, the cross-race effect mainly affects the reliability of witness identification. For example, when the witnesses and suspects in the case belong to different races, case handlers should be wary of possible identification biases that witnesses may appear. To reduce this impact, the 'sequential identification method' (rather than simultaneous identification) can be used in practice to allow witnesses to view the identified subjects one by one to avoid misidentification due to face similarity; at the same time, the accuracy of identification can be improved by increasing the witness's attention to heterogeneous characteristics (such as asking details such as 'the shape of the suspect's eye' and 'whether there are scars'). In addition, this effect will also be emphasized in judicial training to help case handlers scientifically evaluate the credibility of witness testimony.
Critical Analysis
The cross-racial effect is not an absolute 'racial bias', but a universal cognitive law, and there are individual differences - people who often interact with heterogeneous races will be significantly weakened. At the same time, we cannot deny the validity of witness testimony just based on 'interracial' and we need to make a comprehensive judgment based on other evidence (such as surveillance video and DNA identification). In addition, over-emphasis on this effect may raise new problems, such as allowing juries to create unnecessary suspicion of the testimony of interracial witnesses, which will in turn affect judicial justice. Therefore, it is necessary to remain objective in application to avoid extreme interpretation.
Weapon focus effect
What is the weapon focus effect?
Weapon focus effect refers to the phenomenon that when weapons (such as knives, guns, etc.) appear on the scene in a violent crime or dangerous event, the witness's attention will be highly focused on the weapon, causing the memory of other important details in the event (such as the suspect's appearance, clothing, movements, etc.) to become blurred or inaccurate. Simply put, it is 'the weapon is too conspicuous and other details are ignored.'
Background source
This effect originates from common phenomena in judicial practice: witnesses in many violent cases can clearly describe the shape, color and even details of the weapon, but they don’t remember the suspect’s appearance and other environmental characteristics at the time of the incident. In the 1980s, psychologist Elizabeth Loftus systematically verified this phenomenon for the first time through experiments. She found that when gun-carrying characters appeared in the picture, the accuracy of the subjects' memory of facial features of the gun-carrying person was significantly lower than that of the characters holding harmless items (such as wallets) in the picture. Since then, this effect has become one of the core issues in legal psychology to study the reliability of witness memory.
Core Principle
The core principle of the weapon focus effect is related to the human 'threat-driven attention' mechanism. From an evolutionary psychology perspective, humans will have an instinctive alertness to potential threats (such as weapons), which will automatically occupy the brain's attention resources. Because the brain's attention resources are limited, when a large amount of resources are concentrated on the 'threat source' of weapons, the resources allocated to other information (such as the suspect's face, surrounding environment) will be reduced, resulting in insufficient encoding and memory of this information. In addition, emotional arousal (such as fear, tension) can also strengthen this effect - strong emotions will make the brain prioritize threat information and further suppress memory of non-threatening details.
Experimental basis
In Loftus' classic experiment, the researchers showed the subjects two videos: one is a man threatening others with a gun, and the other is a man holding a check book and talking to others. The subjects were then asked to recall the man's facial features (such as hairstyle, whether he was wearing glasses) and other details (such as items in the background) in the video. The results showed that the subjects who watched the gun video had a memory accuracy of men's facial features was only 42%, while the subjects who watched the checkbook video had an accuracy rate of 71%. However, the memory accuracy rate of 'weapons' or 'checkbook' was the opposite, with the former reaching 89% and the latter reaching 65%. Subsequent experiments also found that the higher the threat of a weapon (such as a gun is more threatening than a knife), the more obvious this effect is, further verifying the principle of 'threat intensity affects attention distribution'.
Realistic application
In judicial practice, the weapon focus effect is of great guiding significance for witness inquiries and evidence collection. When inquiring witnesses in violent cases, case handlers should pay attention to guiding witnesses to recall non-weapon details and avoid asking questions only about weapons. For example, the 'segmental recollection method' can be used: first let the witness describe the overall process of the incident, and then gradually guide them to recall details of non-threat stages such as 'what the suspect was doing before the incident' and 'who were around before the weapon appeared'; or by displaying pictures of the crime scene, you can also help witnesses to evoke environmental memory and indirectly supplement ignored information. In addition, in court, judges and juries need to understand this effect, avoid witnesses believing their testimony on other details because they can clearly describe the weapon. They need to make a comprehensive judgment based on physical evidence, surveillance and other evidence.
Critical Analysis
The weapon focus effect does not occur in all cases, and its intensity is affected by a variety of factors: for example, the distance between the witness and the weapon (the closer the easier it is to focus), the duration of the event (the longer the more likely it is to allocate attention to other details), the emotional stability of the witness (the calmer the less likely it is to be affected), etc. In addition, this effect may also be misread - sometimes the witness's clear memory of the weapon is not because 'ignoring other details', but because the weapon itself is a key item in the case, and the witness will deliberately remember it. Therefore, when applying this effect, it is necessary to analyze the specific case and cannot be generalized.
Confidence-accuracy dissociation
What is the confidence-accurate assumption effect?
Confidence-accuracy dissociation, more accurately, is the 'separation of confidence and accuracy', which refers to a phenomenon that is not always positively related to the level of confidence in the witness's memory (i.e., 'I'm sure I remember correctly') and the actual accuracy of the memory content. Simply put, it means 'the more confident the witness is, the more accurate the testimony is,' and there may even be 'high confidence but low accuracy'.
Background source
For a long time, there has been a default assumption in judicial practice: the higher the confidence of a witness in his testimony, the higher the accuracy of his memory. But psychological research in the 1990s overturned this hypothesis. Through a large number of experiments, researchers have found that many witnesses may have errors in their testimony when recalling events even if they are very confident in their memory; while some witnesses with lower confidence have more accurate testimony. This finding had a significant impact on judicial rulings, prompting the legal community to re-examine the role of 'witness confidence' in evidence assessment.
Core Principle
The core principle of this effect is related to the 'reconstructiveness' and 'external influencing factors' of memory. Human memory is not a simple 'video playback', but it will be constantly reconstructed during the memory process - affected by factors such as subsequent information, hints from others, and emotional state. For example, when a witness is asked repeatedly, “Are you sure it is him?”, even if the initial memory is blurred, it may gradually increase confidence due to repeated confirmation; or after seeing the case information reported by the media, 'integrate' external information into your memory, mistakenly thinking that it was seen by yourself. In addition, the 'easiness' of memory can also affect confidence - witnesses will be more confident in the details that are easily recalled (such as bright colors, strong emotional scenes), but the accuracy of these details may not be higher.
Experimental basis
In the classic experiment, the researchers asked the subjects to watch a video of a robbery, and then asked the witnesses in different ways: one group of subjects received a 'confirmation question' (such as 'You see the robber wearing red clothes, right?'), and the other group received a 'open question' (such as 'What color of clothes are worn by the robber?'). The results showed that the confidence score of the participants who received the confirmation question for their testimony (average 8.2 points, full score of 10 points) was significantly higher than that of the open-ended questioning group (average 6.5 points), but the actual accuracy of the former (60%) was lower than that of the latter (75%). Subsequent experiments also found that when witnesses receive 'feedback' after recalling (such as 'You remember it correctly'), confidence will be significantly improved, but the accuracy does not change, further proving that confidence and accuracy can be separated.
Realistic application
In judicial practice, this effect reminds case handlers and juries not to judge the reliability of testimony based solely on the 'confidence' of the witnesses. Specific applications include: when asking witnesses, open-ended questions (such as 'What did you see at that time?') rather than guiding questions (such as 'You see him holding a knife, right?') to reduce the undue impact of external hints on witness confidence; when evaluating testimony, focus on the 'richness of details' and 'consistency' of witness memory (such as whether multiple recollections are consistent), rather than just looking at the expression of confidence; in court, judges need to explain this effect to the jury to avoid the jury from believing in the testimony because of the witness's 'positive tone'. In addition, judicial training will also emphasize the rational assessment of witness confidence and comprehensive judgments combined with other evidence links.
Critical Analysis
The separation of confidence and accuracy is not absolute, and there is still a certain relationship under certain conditions - for example, when a witness clearly encodes an event (such as long duration of the event, concentration of attention), and is not disturbed by external interference when recalling, high confidence is often accompanied by high accuracy. Therefore, we cannot completely deny the reference value of faith, but we must distinguish between 'reasonable faith' and 'false faith'. In addition, over-emphasis on this effect may lead to excessive suspicion of witness testimony and affect the efficiency of case investigation. In practice, it is necessary to balance the assessment of confidence and accuracy through scientific inquiry methods and evidence verification.
Conclusion
The cross-race effect, weapon focus effect and confidence-accurate assumption effect are important phenomena in legal psychology that reveal the laws of human cognition and memory. They not only help us understand the source of witness testimony bias in judicial practice, but also provide a scientific basis for improving the reliability of evidence and ensuring judicial fairness. Whether it is case handlers, legal practitioners or the general public, understanding these effects can allow us to look at psychological factors in the judicial process more rationally and jointly promote the realization of fairness and justice. In future legal practice, with the deepening of psychological research, the application of these effects will be more accurate, injecting more scientific power into the judicial system.
Continue to pay attention to the series of articles in 'Complete Psychological Effects' and explore more secret weapons of psychology in depth.
Link to this article: https://m.psyctest.cn/article/ROGK7yGE/
If the original article is reprinted, please indicate the author and the source in the form of this link.
