Eyewitness testimony by individuals who stammer: Evidence, experience and perceived credibility.
Saved in:
| Title: | Eyewitness testimony by individuals who stammer: Evidence, experience and perceived credibility. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Maras, Katie (AUTHOR), Park, Sohee (AUTHOR), Grafton, Patrick (AUTHOR), Peat, Jasmin (AUTHOR), Toshniwal, Navyaa (AUTHOR), Haigherty, Alice (AUTHOR), Guo, Kevin (AUTHOR), Franks, Monty (AUTHOR), Goodwin, Hannah (AUTHOR), Sainz, Victoria Grau (AUTHOR), Sharma, Amaira (AUTHOR), Fridman, Alisa (AUTHOR), Gordon‐Ellis, Luke (AUTHOR), Howells, Kirsten (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | British Journal of Psychology. Feb2026, Vol. 117 Issue 1, p76-103. 28p. |
| Subjects: | Empathy, Interprofessional relations, Prompts (Psychology), Worry, Speech, Computer software, T-test (Statistics), Research funding, Research evaluation, Content analysis, Interviewing, Statistical sampling, Questionnaires, Stuttering, Anxiety, Multivariate analysis, Chi-squared test, Thematic analysis, Surveys, Patience, Professions, Trust, Research methodology, Memory, Jury, Analysis of variance, Quality assurance, Accuracy, Report writing, Interpersonal relations, Judgment (Psychology), Patient decision making, Charities, Data analysis software, Patients' attitudes, Patient aftercare, Avoidance (Psychology), Social stigma, Self-disclosure, Cognition, Discriminant analysis, Regression analysis, Evaluation |
| Geographic Terms: | United Kingdom |
| Abstract: | Stammering may impede an individual's eyewitness testimony and reduce jurors' perceptions of their credibility through a complex interplay of bio‐psycho‐social factors. However, no research to date has explored this. Three co‐produced, mixed‐methods studies are reported, investigating the evidential quality, lived experiences and perceived credibility of people who stammer (PWS) as witnesses. In pre‐registered Study 1, PWS recalled as much correct information as non‐stammering witnesses overall. However, during the free – but not cued – recall interview phase, PWS provided fewer correct details. A reflexive thematic analysis of participants' post‐testimony reflections captured how PWS experienced a cyclical relationship between communicative pressure, anxiety over listener misperceptions and stammer severity, which they navigated either by employing avoidance strategies at the expense of testimony or by speaking through their stammer. In pre‐registered Study 2, mock jurors rated PWS as less confident yet more likeable and trustworthy than non‐stammering witnesses. In Study 3, providing jurors with information about stammering further improved their likeability and trustworthiness but had no impact on perceived confidence. Findings provide new insight into communication disorders in legal contexts – and the unique challenges faced by PWS in particular – demonstrating the need for systemic accommodations and targeted training for legal professionals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of British Journal of Psychology is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Stammering may impede an individual's eyewitness testimony and reduce jurors' perceptions of their credibility through a complex interplay of bio‐psycho‐social factors. However, no research to date has explored this. Three co‐produced, mixed‐methods studies are reported, investigating the evidential quality, lived experiences and perceived credibility of people who stammer (PWS) as witnesses. In pre‐registered Study 1, PWS recalled as much correct information as non‐stammering witnesses overall. However, during the free – but not cued – recall interview phase, PWS provided fewer correct details. A reflexive thematic analysis of participants' post‐testimony reflections captured how PWS experienced a cyclical relationship between communicative pressure, anxiety over listener misperceptions and stammer severity, which they navigated either by employing avoidance strategies at the expense of testimony or by speaking through their stammer. In pre‐registered Study 2, mock jurors rated PWS as less confident yet more likeable and trustworthy than non‐stammering witnesses. In Study 3, providing jurors with information about stammering further improved their likeability and trustworthiness but had no impact on perceived confidence. Findings provide new insight into communication disorders in legal contexts – and the unique challenges faced by PWS in particular – demonstrating the need for systemic accommodations and targeted training for legal professionals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 00071269 |
| DOI: | 10.1111/bjop.70014 |
