22.3678, FYI: Interpretation of a Crisis Call - Results

[linguist at LINGUISTLIST.ORG]

LINGUIST List: Vol-22-3678. Wed Sep 21 2011. ISSN: 1068 - 4875.

Subject: 22.3678, FYI: Interpretation of a Crisis Call - Results

Moderators: Anthony Aristar, Eastern Michigan U <aristar at linguistlist.org>
            Helen Aristar-Dry, Eastern Michigan U <hdry at linguistlist.org>
 
Reviews: Veronika Drake, U of Wisconsin-Madison  
Monica Macaulay, U of Wisconsin-Madison  
Rajiv Rao, U of Wisconsin-Madison  
Joseph Salmons, U of Wisconsin-Madison  
Anja Wanner, U of Wisconsin-Madison  
       <reviews at linguistlist.org> 

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org/

The LINGUIST List is funded by Eastern Michigan University, 
and donations from subscribers and publishers.

Editor for this issue: Brent Miller <brent at linguistlist.org>
================================================================  

To post to LINGUIST, use our convenient web form at
http://linguistlist.org/LL/posttolinguist.cfm.

===========================Directory==============================  

1)
Date: 21-Sep-2011
From: Helen Fraser [helenbfraser at gmail.com]
Subject: Interpretation of a Crisis Call - Results
 

	
-------------------------Message 1 ---------------------------------- 
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 12:59:22
From: Helen Fraser [helenbfraser at gmail.com]
Subject: Interpretation of a Crisis Call - Results

E-mail this message to a friend:
http://linguistlist.org/issues/emailmessage/verification.cfm?iss=22-3678.html&submissionid=4532561&topicid=6&msgnumber=1
  


Thanks to all those who participated in the experiment we ran a few 
months back using the audio from a real legal case to test the effects of 
priming on the interpretation of a disputed utterance - and to all those 
who circulated the link and helped us reach 190 participants from a 
wide range of demographic groups.

The results have now been processed and the article accepted for the 
next issue of International Journal of Speech Language and the Law. I 
am happy to send a pre-publication copy to anyone who needs one, 
though naturally this should not be cited or circulated until it has been 
officially published.

I have created a mini-version of the experiment (far shorter, and 
collecting no data), and also prepared a short summary of the main 
findings suitable for general consumption (especially, I hope, by 
lawyers). 

Both of these are now available at the link below.

Feel free to use the mini-experiment for demonstration purposes, or if 
you did not do the expt yourself, to get a quick sense of what it was all 
about.

http://helenfraser.com.au/forensic/index.htm#transcription

For those who just want a quick two-liner - the experiment found that 
around 30% of those in the group that received the incriminating prime 
'heard' it after it was suggested to them, though virtually no-one in 
either group heard it before it was suggested. Around half of these 
30% still 'heard' the suggested interpretation of the section of interest 
at the end of the experiment, after being advised that experts were 
agreed that interpretation was not valid.

Perhaps more surprisingly, in the group that did not receive the 
incriminating prime, 14% (i.e. statistically similar number) heard the 
suggested phrase at the end of the experiment even though they had 
only been exposed to it for the first time in the 'full story' - i.e. in the 
context of being told that all the experts had rejected the suggestion.

Further, there was a strong correlation between hearing the 
incriminating phrase in the section of interest and finding the speaker 
'guilty' - again, despite having been told in the 'full story' that the caller 
had been found not guilty and released from prison.

Finally - there was a strong correlation between participants stating at 
the very beginning of the expt, before receiving any information about 
sections of interest, allegations of murder or anything, that they did not 
trust the caller - and finding him guilty at the end.

Well - more than two lines, but there you have it.

Thanks again for your help with the experiment.

Cheers,
Helen

PS For those who are interested in the case itself, I highly recommend 
Bronwen Innes' article in the current issue of IJSLL. 



Linguistic Field(s): Forensic Linguistics





 







-----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-22-3678	
----------------------------------------------------------