Eyewitness testimony by individuals who stammer: Evidence, experience and perceived credibility.
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...
| Publicado en: | British Journal of Psychology Vol. 117; no. 1; pp. 76 - 104 |
|---|---|
| Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
| Formato: | Artículo |
| Publicado: |
Wiley-Blackwell
Feb2026
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ssf&AN=190788914&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: ssf uiTerm: 190788914 longDbName: Social Sciences Full Text (H.W. Wilson) uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 00071269 BJP jtl: British Journal of Psychology issn: 00071269 maglogo: Y pubinfo: dt: Feb2026 vid: 117 iid: 1 pid: 480 pub: Wiley-Blackwell artinfo: ui: 190788914 10.1111/bjop.70014 ppf: 76 ppct: 28 formats: fmt: – @attributes: type: T – @attributes: type: C – @attributes: type: P size: 633KB tig: atl: Eyewitness testimony by individuals who stammer: Evidence, experience and perceived credibility. aug: au: Maras, Katie Park, Sohee Grafton, Patrick Peat, Jasmin Toshniwal, Navyaa Haigherty, Alice Guo, Kevin Franks, Monty Goodwin, Hannah Sainz, Victoria Grau Sharma, Amaira Fridman, Alisa Gordon‐Ellis, Luke Howells, Kirsten affil: Department of Psychology, University of Bath, Bath, UK STAMMA, London, UK su: United Kingdom Empathy Interprofessional relations Speech Content analysis Interviewing Anxiety Professions Trust Memory Jury Analysis of variance Interpersonal relations Judgment (Psychology) Charities Patients' attitudes Avoidance (Psychology) Social stigma Self-disclosure Cognition Prompts (Psychology) Worry Computer software T-test (Statistics) Research funding Research evaluation Statistical sampling Questionnaires Stuttering Multivariate analysis Chi-squared test Thematic analysis Surveys Patience Research methodology Quality assurance Accuracy Report writing Patient decision making Data analysis software Patient aftercare Discriminant analysis Regression analysis Evaluation sug: subj: Empathy Interprofessional relations Speech Content analysis Interviewing Anxiety Professions Trust Memory Jury Analysis of variance Interpersonal relations Judgment (Psychology) Charities Patients' attitudes Avoidance (Psychology) Social stigma Self-disclosure Cognition United Kingdom Other Grantmaking and Giving Services Software publishers (except video game publishers) Computer and software stores Computer, computer peripheral and pre-packaged software merchant wholesalers Computer and Computer Peripheral Equipment and Software Merchant Wholesalers Home Health Care Services Professional Organizations Marketing Research and Public Opinion Polling Prompts (Psychology) Worry Computer software T-test (Statistics) Research funding Research evaluation Statistical sampling Questionnaires Stuttering Multivariate analysis Chi-squared test Thematic analysis Surveys Patience Research methodology Quality assurance Accuracy Report writing Patient decision making Data analysis software Patient aftercare Discriminant analysis Regression analysis Evaluation keyword: credibility jurors language disorder perceptions recall stammering testimony witness credibility jurors language disorder perceptions recall stammering testimony witness ab: 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. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: N holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|