Despite how frequently adults are alone with children, we know little about children's ability to corroborate alibis. In two studies, we investigated children's ability to act as alibi corroborators. In both studies, two visitors (one male, one female) attended children's summer camps to present science activities to the children. In the pilot study ( N = 83; M age = 7.1 years), for half of the children, the female researcher left the room for one of the activities. Children were then interviewed about the adults’ whereabouts either immediately or 1 day later. In the main study ( N = 147; M age = 9.40), the female researcher left the room for one activity in a more salient manner, and all children were interviewed 3 days later. Across both studies, though there was substantial variability, many children did not report that the female researcher left (pilot study, 82%; main study, 32%), despite direct questions about her presence. All inaccurate reports of an adult leaving were in response to the most direct (yes/no) question. These findings suggest that children are largely accurate in corroborating an alibi for someone who did not leave, but many children err when someone does leave. The present studies have implications for how to question children about an adult's whereabouts.

Despite how frequently adults are alone with children, we know little about children's ability to corroborate alibis. In two studies, we investigated children's ability to act as alibi corroborators. In both studies, two visitors (one male, one female) attended children's summer camps to present science activities to the children. In the pilot study (N = 83; M age = 7.1 years), for half of the children, the female researcher left the room for one of the activities. Children were then interviewed about the adults' whereabouts either immediately or 1 day later. In the main study (N = 147; M age = 9.40), the female researcher left the room for one activity in a more salient manner, and all children were interviewed 3 days later. Across both studies, though there was substantial variability, many children did not report that the female researcher left (pilot study, 82%; main study, 32%), despite direct questions about her presence. All inaccurate reports of an adult leaving were in response to the most direct (yes/no) question. These findings suggest that children are largely accurate in corroborating an alibi for someone who did not leave, but many children err when someone does leave. The present studies have implications for how to question children about an adult's whereabouts.

The featural justification effect occurs when an eyewitness provides a confidence statement at a lineup identification referencing a facial feature or component that aided them in their identification (Dodson Dobolyi, Law and Human Behavior, 39(3), 266–280, 2015, Psychology Crime Law, 23, 487–508, 2017, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 24(4), 543–563, 2018; Slane Dodson, Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 8(1), 60–67, 2019). The result of the effect, found across several manipulations, is jurors tend to discredit the confidence of an eyewitness that references a facial feature (e.g., eyes, nose). The current studies examined featural justifications, along with eyewitness viewing conditions and legal safeguards. Participants were presented with either expert testimony (study 1) or jury instruction (study 2 3) with the aim of sensitizing mock jurors to eyewitness factors in the case, as well as alleviating the featural justification effect. All three studies replicated the featural justification effect and found a main effect of viewing condition on verdict, such that good viewing conditions resulted in more guilty verdicts than bad viewing conditions. Other findings varied between the studies. The studies contribute to research on the featural justification effect and include discussion of implications for cases including eyewitness evidence.

Hate-motivated behavior (HMB) comprises a problem for public health and criminal justice systems. The present study contributes to current science of HMB by examining (1) potential typology replication and extension and (2) demographic and attitudinal correlates of HMB subtypes. The present study was a secondary analysis of an online survey study of discriminatory behavior and well-being. Participants were adults living in the United States ( N = 289). Four HMB subtypes emerged: generalized, unmotivated, reactive, and defensive. The generalized subtype was characterized by elevated levels of prejudices, positive views toward hate groups, and the youngest age. The reactive subtype was differentiated from the defensive subtype by modestly higher HMB, racism, and positive views toward racially motivated hate groups. HMB subtypes were largely consistent with prior literature, and therefore can inform public health and criminal justice system responses to acts ranging from minor discrimination to interpersonal violence. Prevention and practice are discussed.

The race-crime congruence effect occurs when defendants accused of racially stereotypic crimes receive more punitive outcomes than those accused of non-stereotypic crimes. Additionally, data shows that specific facial cues elicit criminal stereotypes. However, limited data on how appearance-based inferences of criminality impact case judgments exists. Through two studies, we aimed 1) to expand the race-crime congruence effect literature by investigating differences in judgments towards Black, White, and Hispanic defendants, 2) to further explore the predictors of perceived defendant criminality, and 3) to examine the impact of perceived criminality on case judgments. Six hundred eighty-seven participants were randomly assigned to one of nine brief case summaries in a 3 (race) × 3 (stereotypic crime) factorial design and completed various measures. Contrary to predictions, no significant race-crime congruence effects were found along with mixed results regarding the predictors of perceived criminality. However, in study one, perceived criminality mediated the relationship between defendant race x participant prejudice and stability attributions. In study two, stability attributions mediated the relationship between perceived criminality and recommended punishments. These studies provide two substantial contributions to the literature. The results provide evidence of appearance-based inferences of criminality impacting perceptions of defendant behavior and judgments. Additionally, causal beliefs of defendant behavior may in part explain why one’s appearance impacts other’s judgments of them.

Hate-motivated behavior (HMB) comprises a continuum ranging from microaggressions to criminal acts. The measurement of HMB is limited primarily to one or two minoritized groups in any given instrument. Current HMB research also lacks a way to assess the full range of acts and motivations for bias-based behavior. The present study fills gaps in HMB measurement by conducting a psychometric study of the Hate-Motivated Behavior Checklist (HMBC). The HMBC is a self-report instrument of HMB perpetration; the instrument also has sections capturing victim target group (e.g. race, sexual orientation, disability) and perpetrator motivation for HMB commission (e.g., perceived threat, impulsivity). We conducted an online cross-sectional survey of community-dwelling adults and college students (N = 463). Measures assessed demographic information, HMB, and social-political characteristics. Confirmatory factor analysis, item response theory analyses, between-groups analyses (e.g., Analysis of Variance), and descriptive statistics were used to examine HMBC properties. Primary findings included (1) poor model fit of the HMBC behaviors score; (2) good model fit with high reliability for an HMBC behaviors score adapted to binary (no/yes) scoring; (3) men reported meaningfully higher HMB scores compared to women; (4) the most common target classification for HMB was based on political affiliation; and (5) perceived intrusion was the most cited reason for committing HMB. Our findings are an important step in refining the HMBC. The instrument represents a potentially useful tool for HMB research, surveillance, and intervention evaluation. Future directions in HMBC research include application to extremist and criminal samples, replication and extension of the binary scoring to include cut-score derivation, and validation against behavioral outcomes.

The Hate Crime Beliefs Scale (HCBS) is an assessment of attitudes about hate crime laws, offenders, and victims. The original HCBS includes four subscales (negative beliefs, offender punishment, deterrence, and victim harm), while a shortened and modified version from the United Kingdom (UK; HCBS-UK) consists of three subscales (denial, sentencing, and compassion). We conducted a psychometric test of the HCBS in order to identify a best fitting structure with possible item reduction. A total of 463 participants completed the original HCBS, measures of social dominance orientation (SDO) and right-wing authoritarianism (RWA), and demographic questions. Factor analyses revealed good fit of the data for a Hate Crime Beliefs Scale-Short Form (HCBS-SF), largely modeled after the HCBS-UK. The three subscales were: denial (i.e., downplaying hate crime severity and low support for hate crime laws), sentencing (i.e., support for more punitive offender punishment), and compassion (i.e., understanding and concern for victims). All subscales possessed acceptable internal consistency. The denial subscale was positively associated with RWA subscale and SDO scores. The sentencing and compassion subscales were significantly negatively correlated with SDO and RWA subscale scores. Republicans held the least supportive views of hate crime laws, concern for victims, and punishment of offenders. Data underscore the importance of evaluating hate crime beliefs in public opinion and other contexts. The HCBS-SF better captures hate crime related attitudes than the previously developed longer version of the HCBS.

The context of suspected maltreatment cases is likely to influence the decision of whether or not to make a formal report. Across one pilot study (N = 368) and two experiments (Exp. 1 N = 444; Exp. 2 N =416), undergraduate students and online community participants reported their anticipated actions and beliefs when confronted with evidence of child maltreatment. Participants reviewed case dossiers built from real-world child neglect cases in which increasing levels of evidence were presented and the consequences of reporting, or not reporting, the maltreatment were made salient to the adult or child. The experiments revealed a clear difficulty in deciding whether or not to report suspected maltreatment. Highlighting the impact on either the child or the adult by describing potential consequences moved participants either closer to (child-salient) or farther from (adult-salient) a formal report. Participants were also sensitive to the amount of evidence to support a suspicion of abuse, which influenced the likelihood of a formal report. This work suggests that increasing the salience of maltreatment consequences to child victims may increase the likelihood that suspected maltreatment will be reported.

Stereotypes and prejudice have been shown to bias information processing and decision-making. There are physical traits that are stereotypically associated with criminals (i.e. tattoos, dark skin-tone, facial untrustworthiness) and have been shown to influence juror decision-making. The current research aimed to investigate the effects of tattoos, facial trustworthiness and skin tone on juror case judgments and criminal appearance ratings, while also investigating and accounting for prejudice and motivation to respond without prejudice. Participants (n = 426) were asked to act as mock jurors in a hypothetical assault case by making case judgments and responding to appearance and attitude measures. Criminal appearance ratings indirectly mediated the relationship between physical traits and verdict decisions. Additionally, a significant interaction emerged between skin tone and racial prejudice on criminal appearance ratings, suggesting that the effects of physical traits may depend on individual attitudes. Implications and future directions are discussed.

Hate-motivated behavior (HMB) in criminal and noncriminal forms is a public health dilemma. This study is an advanced measurement of the perpetration of HMB through development of the Hate-Motivated Behavior Checklist (HMBC). Through a cross-sectional online-administered survey of adults (N = 289), we examined: (a) factor structure and internal consistency of HMBC behaviors, (b) descriptive patterns of targeted groups and motivations for HMB, and (c) correlates of HMBC behaviors. Findings support a single-factor HMBC behaviors score with high internal consistency. HMB based on race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and sex were the most commonly endorsed. The most highly endorsed motivations for HMB were perceived intrusion and perceived threat. Antigay prejudice, antilesbian prejudice, positive views of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) and Nazis were among significant correlates of HMB perpetration. The HMBC represents a preliminary research measurement tool for the assessment of HMB in need of further psychometric study.

The purpose of this study was to investigate how the race salience effect influences juror decision making when manipulated through defense attorney statements. The literature is unclear regarding the ability of attorney statements to manipulate race salience and the individual influence of opening statements and closing arguments in creating the effect. In the current study, 207 undergraduate White mock jurors participated in a simulated criminal assault case in which defendant race was made salient through defense attorney statements (through opening statements, closing arguments, or both). Results indicated a race salience effect for verdict choice when race was salient and suggested that closing arguments may be particularly important in creating this effect. Our results also suggest that race salience creates an outgroup favoritism effect rather than the equalizing effect identified in early research. Implications of these findings for the race salience and juror decision making literature are discussed along with implications for actual court cases.

For over 35 years, scholars have searched with little success for a legal safeguard that can sensitize jurors to eyewitness testimony. The present study explored whether expert testimony that uses the I-I-Eye method of analyzing eyewitness testimony can improve juror sensitivity to eyewitness evidence. Participants read a trial transcript with no expert testimony, standard expert testimony or expert testimony that used the I-I-Eye method. The two transcripts for the three expert groups had either strong or weak eyewitness testimony. Unlike the control participants, the I-I-Eye expert participants rendered significantly more guilty verdicts in the strong than in the weak case. The standard expert testimony did not affect verdicts even though it increased participants' knowledge of the eyewitness factors. It appears that the I-I-Eye method improved sensitivity because it not only increased participants' knowledge of eyewitness factors, but also explained how to use that knowledge in assessing eyewitness accuracy.

The zero-sum perspective (ZSP) implies gains made by one group (e.g., women) translate into equivalent loss for another group (e.g., men). The present studies extend prior research by examining whether individuals with a ZSP of gender status exhibit later discrimination. In Study 1, 624 U.S. undergraduates completed online measures of political orientation, social dominance orientation (SDO), right-wing authoritarianism (RWA), sexism, and ZSP of gender status. One month later, they read three online scenarios depicting a male target and three depicting a female target in a leadership or collaborative role, then rated their endorsement of the target. Regression results indicated that beyond the effects of participants' gender, political orientation, RWA, SDO, and sexism, the greater participants' ZSP of gender status, the less they endorsed female leaders and collaborators. ZSP did not predict endorsement of male targets. In Study 2, 249 adults across the United States completed the same initial measures as in Study 1 then one month later, read two online scenarios depicting a male target and two depicting a female target, then rated target endorsement. Greater ZSP of gender status again predicted less endorsement of female targets. A significant ZSP x Target Gender interaction showed endorsement of female targets declined with increasing ZSP whereas endorsement of male targets remained unchanged across levels of ZSP. These findings show discrimination against female leaders and collaborators by individuals who possess a ZSP of gender status and provide insight into how win-lose perceptions of gender status may impede gender equality.

Abstract This article examines how theater, music, and art and design undergraduate programs assess student learning. One hundred twenty-three programs provided quantitative and qualitative survey assessment data in five categories: knowledge building, creative production, contextualization, communication, and professionalism. Gale and Bond's four-part framework informed the development of the instrument sections, but the results of this study also support the credibility of the framework. Two overarching themes in the arts are creativity and performance, not only in terms of what is being assessed but also in how assessment is carried out.

Victim impact statements (VISs) are controversial in capital sentencing proceedings largely due to their questionable relevance to sentencing, the concern that characterizations of the victim may lead to arbitrary sentencing judgments, and the belief that the emotional nature of this evidence may be inflammatory. A sample of 192 capital trial VIS transcripts was analyzed for content as well as a linguistic analysis of emotionality. The findings reveal that these statements are highly varied, including their format. length, and relation between the witness and the victim. Despite a legislative mandate that they address the emotional, financial. and physical suffering experienced by victim survivors, testimony of this nature occurs in a minority of the cases. Most commonly, these statements tend to characterize the victim and their qualities, relay the witness' shock at first learning of the victim's death (i.e., trauma narratives), and address the significance of the deceased to the family unit. In approximately one third of the transcripts reviewed, the witness made mention of the defendant, but this rarely included any mention of a desire for vengeance or recommended punishment. linguistic analysis revealed that emotional content was prevalent throughout the testimony. with sadness emerging as more pervasive than anger. However the degree of emotional language contained in these statements was not particularly high-and was comparable to that typically encountered in everyday life (e.g., newspapers, novels). Implications, particularly with regard to the potential for VISs to be considered inflammatory, are discussed.

Several constructs have been identified as relevant to the juror decision-making process in hate crime cases. However, there is a lack of research on the relationships between these constructs and their variable influence across victim group. The purpose of the current study was to reexamine factors relevant to the juror decision-making process in hate crime cases within a structural model, and across victim group, to gauge the relative strength and explanatory power of various predictors. In the current study, 313 participants sentenced a perpetrator found guilty of a hate crime committed against either a Black man or a gay man; participants also responded to individual difference measures relevant to mock juror hate crime decision making, including prejudice toward the victim’s social group. Using path analysis, we explored the role of juror prejudice on sentencing decisions in hate crime cases as well as similarities and differences based on the victimized group. Results indicated that, when the victim was a Black man, modern racism influenced sentencing both directly and indirectly through perpetrator blame attributions, explaining 18% of the variance in sentencing. In contrast, when the victim was a gay man, modern homophobia did not directly predict sentencing, and the overall model explained only 4% of the variance in sentencing, suggesting variables beyond juror prejudice may be better suited to explain juror decision making in sexual orientation–based hate crimes. The current study suggests that the role of juror prejudice in hate crime cases varies as a function of the victimized group and raises questions about the importance of juror prejudice in the sentencing of hate crime cases, particularly antigay prejudice. The importance of blame attributions, social dominance orientation, and juror beliefs regarding penalty enhancements for hate crime cases, as well as policy implications, are also addressed.