Persuasión y testificación: una (re)vision social de la credibilidad del testimonio

  1. Prieto Ederra, Ángel
  2. Sobral Fernández, Jorge
Revista:
Psicothema

ISSN: 0214-9915

Ano de publicación: 1993

Volume: 5

Número: 1

Páxinas: 393-410

Tipo: Artigo

Outras publicacións en: Psicothema

Resumo

En el presente artículo se pretende presentar un marco teórico bajo el que agrupar la investigación sobre la evaluación del testimonio de testigos presenciales. Desde este punto de vista, se analizan las posibilidades de aplicación y de interpretación teórica de algunos de los principales modelos cognitivos de la persuasión al área de la testificación: modelos de respuesta cognitiva, modelos heurísticos y atribucionales. Se analizan también algunos de los resultados de investigación, aparentemente contradictorios, que pueden dejar de serlo bajo un marco teórico de la psicología de la persuasión.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Anderson, N. H. (1971). Integration theory and attitude change. Psychological Review, 78, 171-206.
  • Bailey, F. L. y Rothblatt, H. B. (1971). Succesful techniques for criminal trials. Rochester. New York: Lawyers Co-operative Publishing Co.
  • Baumeister, R. F. y Darley, J. M. (1982) Reducing the biasing effect of perpetrator attractiveness in jury simulation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 8, 286-292.
  • Bell, B. y Loftus, E. F. (1988). Degree of detail of eyewitness testimony and mock juror judgments. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 18, 1171-1192.
  • Bell, B. A. y Loftus, E. F. (1989). Trivial persuasion in the courtroom: the power of (a few) minor details. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 56, 669-679.
  • Brigham, J. C. y Bothwell, R. K. (1983). The ability of prospective jurors to estimate the accuracy of eyewitness identifications. Law and Human Behavior, 7, 10-30.
  • Bruner, J. (1984). Narrative and paradigmatic modes of thought. Presentado a la convención anual de la APA. Toronto.
  • Cacioppo, J. T. y Petty, R. E. (1979). Effects of message repetition on cognitive responses, recall and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 97-109.
  • Cavoukian, A. (1980). The influence of eyewitness identification evidence. Tesis Doctoral no publicada, Universidad de Toronto.
  • Chaiken, S, (1987), The heuristic model of persuasion. En M.P. Zanna, J.M. Olson y C.P. Herman (eds.). Social influence: the Ontario Symposium, Vol. 5. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
  • Deffenbacher, K. A. y Loftus, E. F. (1982). Do jurors share a common understanding concerning eyewitness behavior?. Law and Human Behavior. 6, 15-30.
  • Eagly, A. H. y Chaiken, S. (1984). Cognitive theories of persuasion. En L. Berkowit (ed. ). Advances in Experimental Social Psychology . Vol. 17. New York: Academic Press.
  • Eagly, A. H., Chaiken, S. y Wood, W. (1981). An attribution analysis of persuasion. En J.H. Harvey, W. Ickes y R.F. Kidd (eds.). New Directions in Attribution Research. Vol. 3, Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
  • Einhorn, H. J. y Hogarth, R. M. (1976). Confidence in judgment: persistence and illusion of validity. Psychological Review, 85, 395-461.
  • Erickson, B., Lind, E. A., Johnson, B. C. y O'Barr, W. M. (1978). Speech style a impression formation in a court setting: the effects of "powerful" and "powerless" speech. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 266-279.
  • Flavell, J. H. y Wellman, H. M. (1977). Metamemory. En R.V. Kail y J.W. Hagen (eds.). Perspectives on the development of memory and cognition. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Fukada, H. (1986). Psychological processes mediating the persuasion inhibiting effect of forewarning in fear arousing communication. Psychological Reporte, 58, 87-90.
  • Hatvani, N. y Stack, F. (1980). The impact of a discredited key witness. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 10, 490-509.
  • Geiselman, R. E., Fisher, R. P., Firstenberg, l., Hutton, L. A., Sullivan, S. J., Avetissian, I.V. y Prosk, A.L. (1984). Enhancement of eyewitness memory: an empirical evaluation of the cognitive interview. Journal of Police Science and Administration. 12, 74-80.
  • Hendry, S. H., Shaffer, D. R. y Peacock, D. (1989). On testifying in one's behalf: interactive effects of testimonial strength and defendant's testimonial demeanor on mock jurors'decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 539-545.
  • Kalven, H. y Zeisel, H. (1966). The american jury. Bosto: Litle Brown.
  • Kaplan, M. F. y Schersching, C. (1980). Reducing juror bias: an experimental approach. En P. D. Lipitt y B. D. Sales (eds.). New Approaches in psycho legal research, (pp. 149-170). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
  • Kerr, N. L. (1982). Trial participants’ behaviors and jury verdicts: an exploratory field study. En V.J. Konecni y E.B. Ebbesen (eds.). New approaches in psycho legal research , (pp. 261-290), New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
  • Konecni, V. J. y Ebbesen, E. B. (1979). External validity of research in legal psychology. Law and Human Behavior. 3, 39-70.
  • Leippe, M. R. (1985). The influence of eyewitness non identifications on mock-juror judgements of a court case. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 15, 656-672.
  • Lindsay, R. C. L., Lim, R., Marando, L. y Cully, D. (1986). Mock-juror evaluations of eyewitness testimony: a test of metamemory hypotheses. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16, 447-459.
  • Loftus, E. F. (1974). The incredible eyewitness. Psychology Today. Diciembre, 116-119.
  • Loftus, E. F. (1979a). Eyewitness Testimony. Cambridge. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
  • Manzanero, A. (1991). Realidad y fantasía: credibilidad, metamemoria y testimonio. Tesis de Licenciatura. Universidad Autónoma de Madrid.
  • McAllister, H. A. y Bregman, N. J. (1982). Juror underutilization of eyewitness non-identifications: theoretical and practical implications. Journal of Applied Psychology.71, 168-170.
  • McAllister, H. A. y Bregman, N. J. (1989). Juror underutilization of eyewitness non-identifications: a test of the disconfirmed expectancy explanation. Journal of Applied Social Psyschology, 20-29.
  • Mira, J. J. y Diges, M. (1991). Teorías intuitivas sobre memoria de testigos: un examen de metamemoria. Revista de Psicología Social, 6, 47-60.
  • Myers, M. A. (1979). Rule departures and making law: juries and their verdicts. Law and Society Review, 13, 781-797.
  • Oswald, M. E. (1992). Justification and goals of punishment and the attribution of responsability in judaes. En F. Lösel, D. Bender y T. Bliesener (eds.). Psychology and the Law. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
  • Penrod, S., Loftus, E. F. y Winkler, J. (1982). The reliabilitv of eyew itness testimonv: a psychological perspective. En R. Bray y N. Kerr (eds.). The psychology of the courtroom. New York: Academic Press.
  • Petty, R. E. y Cacioppo, J. T. (1979). Effects of forewarning of persuasive intent on cognitive responses and persuasion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 5, 173-176.
  • Petty, R. E. y Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion. Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer-Verlag.
  • Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T. y Heesacker, M. (1981). The use of rhetorical questions in persuasion: a cognitive response analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 40, 432-440.
  • Prieto, A. y Sobral, J. (1990). Testificación y veredictos de jurados legos: un estudio experimental. Presentado al II Congreso del Colegio Oficial de Psicólogos. Valencia.
  • Pyszczynsky, T. y Wrightsman, L. (1981). The effects of opening statements on mock juror's verdicts in a simulated criminal trial. Journal of Applied Social Psychogy, 11, 301-313.
  • Saunders, D. M., Vidmar, M. y Hewit, E. C. (1983). Eyewitness testimony and the discrediting effect. En S. M. Lloyd-Bostock, B. R. Clifford, (eds.). Evaluating eyewitness evidence. Chichester: Wiley and Sons.
  • Schul, Y. y Manzury, F. (1990). The effects of type of encoding and strength of discounting appeal on the success of ignoring an invalid testimony. European Journal of Social Psychology. 20, 337-349.
  • Sobral, J. y Prieto, A. (1993). Presentación, discurso y persuasión en testigos. Revista de Psicología Social, en prensa.
  • Weinberg, H. I. y Baron, R. S. (1982). The discredible eyewitness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 8, 60-67.
  • Wells, G. L. y Lindsay, R. C. L. (1983). How do people infer the accuracy of eyewitness memory? Studies on performance and a metamemory analysis. En S. Lloyd-Bostock y B. R. Clifford (eds.). Evaluating Witness Evidence: recent psychological research and new perspectives. Chichester: Wiley and Sons.
  • Wells, G. L., Wrightsman, L. y Miene, P. K. (1985). The timing of the defense opening statement: don't wait until the evidence is in. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 15, 758-772.
  • Whitley, B. E. y Greenberg, M. S. (1986). The role of eyewitness confidence in juror perceptions of credibility. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16, 387-409.
  • Yarmey, A. D. y Jones, H. P. T. (1983). Is the psychology of eyewitness identification a matter of common sense?. En S. Lloyd-Bostock y B. R. Clifford (eds.). Evaluating Witness Evidence: recent psychological research and new perspectives. (pp. 13-41). Chiehester: Wiley and Sons.