The influence of event order on the narratives jurors construct and tell in cases of rape

References

• Anderson, I., & Doherty, K. (2008). Accounting for rape. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Angelone, D. J., Mitchell, D., & Grossi, L. (2015). Men’s perceptions of an acquaintance rape: The role of relationship length, victim resistance, and gender role attitudes. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30(15), 2278–2303. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260514552448
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Axelrod, R. (1973). Schema theory: An information processing model of perception and cognition. The American Political Science Review, 67(4), 1248–1266. https://doi.org/10.2307/1956546
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Blair, J. P., Reimer, T. O., & Levine, T. R. (2018). The role of consistency in detecting deception: The superiority of correspondence over coherence. Communication Studies, 69(5), 483–498. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2018.1447492.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Block, R. A., Hancock, P. A., & Zakay, D. (2010). How cognitive load affects duration judgments: A meta-analytic review. Acta Psychologica, 134(3), 330–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.03.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bohner, G., Eyssel, F., Pina, A., Siebler, F., & Viki, G. T. (2009). Rape myth acceptance: Cognitive, affective and behavioural effects of beliefs that blame the victim and exonerate the perpetrator. In M. Horvath, & J. Brown (Eds.), Rape: Challenging contemporary thinking (pp. 17–45). Willan Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Bornstein, B. H., Golding, J. M., Neuschatz, J., Kimbrough, C., Reed, K., Magyarics, C., & Luecht, K. (2017). Mock juror sampling issues in jury simulation research: A meta-analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 41(1), 13–28. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000223
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brewer, W. E., & Nakamura, G. V. (1984). The nature and functions of schemas. In R. S. Wyer Jr, & T. K. Srull (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition (pp. 119–160). Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Brodsky, S. L., Griffin, M. P., & Cramer, R. J. (2010). The witness credibility scale: An outcome measure for expert witness research. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 28(6), 892–907. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.917
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buckles, T. (2007). Crime scene investigation, criminalistics, and the law. Thomson Delmar Learning.
   Google Scholar
• Burgin, R., & Flynn, A. (2021). Women’s behavior as implied consent: Male ‘reasonableness’ in Australian rape law. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 21(3), 334–352. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895819880953
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burnett, A., & Badzinski, D. M. (2000). An exploratory study of argument in the jury decision-making process. Communication Quarterly, 48(4), 380–396. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463370009385605
   Google Scholar
• Burt, M. R. (1980). Cultural myths and supports for rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38(2), 217–230. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.38.2.217
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burt, M. R., & Albin, R. S. (1981). Rape myths, rape definitions, and probability of conviction. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 11(3), 212–230. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1981.tb00739.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conley, R. H., & Conley, J. M. (2009). Stories from the jury room: How jurors use narrative to process evidence. In A. Sarat (Ed.), Studies in law, politics and society (pp. 25–56). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1059-4337(2009)0000049005
   Google Scholar
• Cook, N. K., & Messman-Moore, T. L. (2018). I said no: The impact of voicing non-consent on women’s perceptions of and responses to rape. Violence Against Women, 24(5), 507–527. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801217708059
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cossins, A. (2020). Closing the justice gap for adult and child sexual assault: Rethinking the adversarial trial. Springer Nature.
   Google Scholar
• Cretchley, J., Rooney, D., & Gallois, C. (2010). Mapping a 40-year history with Leximancer: Themes and concepts in the Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 41(3), 318–328. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022110366105
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Groot, A. D. (1978). Thought and choice in chess (4th ed.). Mouton.
   Google Scholar
• Devine, D. J. (2012). Jury decision making: The state of the science. New York University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dinos, S., Burrowes, N., Hammond, K., & Cunliffe, C. (2015). A systematic review of juries’ assessment of rape victims: Do rape myths impact on juror decision-making? International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 43(1), 36–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlcj.2014.07.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edwards, K. M., Probst, D. R., Tansill, E. C., Dixon, K. J., Bennett, S., & Gidycz, C. A. (2014). In their own words: A content-analytic study of college women’s resistance to sexual assault. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29(14), 2527–2547. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260513520470
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edwards, K. M., Turchik, J. A., Dardis, C. M., Reynolds, N., & Gidycz, C. A. (2011). Rape myths: History, individual and institutional-level presence, and implications for change. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 65(11-12), 761–773. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-9943-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ellison, L., & Munro, V. E. (2009). Turning mirrors into windows? Assessing the impact of (mock) juror education in rape trials. The British Journal of Criminology, 49(3), 363–383. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azp013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ellison, L., & Munro, V. E. (2015). ‘Telling tales’: Exploring narratives of life and law within the (mock) jury room. Legal Studies, 35(2), 201–225. https://doi.org/10.1111/lest.12051
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ericsson, K. A., & Lehmann, A. C. (1996). Expert and exceptional performance: Evidence of maximal adaptation to task constraints. Annual Review of Psychology, 47(1), 273–305. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.47.1.273
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1980). Verbal reports as data. Psychological Review, 87(3), 215–251. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.87.3.215
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1998). How to study thinking in everyday life: Contrasting think-aloud protocols with descriptions and explanations of thinking. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 5(3), 178–186. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327884mca0503_3
   Google Scholar
• Estrich, S. (1987). Real rape: How the legal system victimises women who say no. Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fiske, S. T., & Linville, P. W. (1980). What does the schema concept buy us? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 6(4), 543–557. https://doi.org/10.1177/014616728064006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerger, H., Kley, H., Bohner, G., & Siebler, F. (2007). The acceptance of modern myths about sexual aggression scale: Development and validation in German and English. Aggressive Behavior, 33(5), 422–440. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.20195
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodman-Delahunty, J., Martschuk, N., & Cossins, A. (2017a). Validation of the child sexual abuse knowledge questionnaire. Psychology, Crime & Law, 23(4), 391–412. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2016.1258469
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodman-Delahunty, J., Martschuk, N., & Cossins, A. (2017b). What Australian jurors know and do not know about evidence in child sexual abuse. Criminal Law Journal, 41, 86–103. https://researchoutput.csu.edu.au/en/publications/what-australian-jurors-know-and-do-not-know-about-evidence-in-chi
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gray, J. M. (2015). What constitutes a ‘reasonable belief’ in consent to sex? A thematic analysis. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 21(3), 337–353. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552600.2014.900122
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grubb, A., & Turner, E. (2012). Attribution of blame in rape cases: A review of the impact of rape myth acceptance, gender role conformity and substance use on victim blaming. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17(5), 443–452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2012.06.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hasan, H., Connery, A., & Crawford, K. (2018). Challenges of IS research translation: A study of tensions between ICT innovation and conservative bureaucracies. Australasian Journal of Information Systems, 22, https://doi.org/10.3127/ajis.v22i0.1875
   Google Scholar
• Hequembourg, A. L., Blayney, J. A., Livingston, J. A., Bostwick, W., & Auerbach, S. (2021). A mixed methods investigation of sexual victimisation and coping among sexual minority compared to heterosexual women. Psychology & Sexuality, 12(1–2), 17–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/19419899.2019.1678193
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hildebrand, M. M., & Najdowski, C. J. (2014). The potential impact of rape culture on juror decision making: Implications for wrongful acquittals in sexual assault trials. Albany Law Review, 78(3), 1059–1086.
   Google Scholar
• Judd, C. M., Westfall, J., & Kenny, D. A. (2017). Experiments with more than one random factor: Designs, analytic models, and statistical power. Annual Review of Psychology, 68(1), 601–625. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033702
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Judicial Studies Board. (2010). Crown court benchbook. Judicial Studies Board.
   Google Scholar
• Kelley, H. H., & Michela, J. L. (1980). Attribution theory and research. Annual Review of Psychology, 31(1), 457–501. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.31.020180.002325
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krahé, B., Bieneck, S., & Scheinberger-Olwig, R. (2007). Adolescents’ sexual scripts: Schematic representations of consensual and nonconsensual heterosexual interactions. The Journal of Sex Research, 44(4), 316–327. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490701580923
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krauss, D. A., & Lieberman, J. D. (2017). Managing different aspects of validity in trial simulation research. In M. B. Kovera (Ed.), The psychology of juries (pp. 185–205). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000026-009
   Google Scholar
• Kunda, Z., Miller, D. T., & Claire, T. (1990). Combining social concepts: The role of causal reasoning. Cognitive Science, 14(4), 551–577. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1404_3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kunda, Z., & Thagard, P. (1996). Forming impressions from stereotypes, traits, and behaviors: A parallel-constraint-satisfaction theory. Psychological Review, 103(2), 284–308. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.103.2.284
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, H. D. H., McKimmie, B. M., Masser, B. M., & Tangen, J. M. (2021). Guided by the rape schema: The influence of event order on how jurors evaluate the victim’s testimony in cases of rape. Psychology, Crime & Law. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2021.1984483
   Google Scholar
• Leib, E. J. (2008). A comparison of criminal jury decision rules in democratic countries. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 5(2), 629–644.
   Google Scholar
• Lemon, L. L., & Hayes, J. (2020). Enhancing trustworthiness of qualitative findings: Using Leximancer for qualitative data analysis triangulation. The Qualitative Report, 25(3), 604–614. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2020.4222
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levett, L. M., & Devine, D. (2017). Integrating individual and group models of juror decision making. In M. B. Kovera (Ed.), The psychology of juries (pp. 11–36). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000026-002
   Google Scholar
• Levine, T. R. (2014). Truth-default theory (TDT): A theory of human deception and deception detection. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 33(4), 378–392. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X14535916
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lieberman, J. D. (2011). The utility of scientific jury selection: Still murky after 30 years. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(1), 48–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721410396628
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Littleton, H., Tabernik, H., Canales, E. J., & Backstrom, T. (2009). Risky situation or harmless fun? A qualitative examination of college women’s bad hook-up and rape scripts. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 60(11-12), 793–804. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-009-9586-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Littleton, H. L., & Axsom, D. (2003). Rape and seduction scripts of university students: Implications for rape attributions and unacknowledged rape. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 49(9-10), 465–475. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025824505185
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Littleton, H. L., Axsom, D., & Yoder, M. (2006). Priming of consensual and nonconsensual sexual scripts: An experimental test of the role of scripts in rape attributions. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 54(7-8), 557–563. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-006-9017-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Littleton, H. L., & Dodd, J. C. (2016). Violent attacks and damaged victims: An exploration of the rape scripts of European American and African American U.S. College women. Violence Against Women, 22(14), 1725–1747. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801216631438
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lonsway, K. A., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1994). Rape myths: In review. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18(2), 133–164. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1994.tb00448.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lynch, K. R., Wasarhaley, N. E., Golding, J. M., & Simcic, T. (2013). Who bought the drinks? Juror perceptions of intoxication in a rape trial. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28(16), 3205–3222. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260513496900
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Masser, B., Lee, K., & McKimmie, B. M. (2010). Bad woman, bad victim? Disentangling the effects of victim stereotypicality, gender stereotypicality and benevolent sexism on acquaintance rape victim blame. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 62(7-8), 494–504. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-009-9648-y
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Masters, N. T., Casey, E., Wells, E. A., & Morrison, D. M. (2013). Sexual scripts among young heterosexually active men and women: Continuity and change. Journal of Sex Research, 50(5), 409–420. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2012.661102
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McKimmie, B. M., Masser, B. M., & Bongiorno, R. (2014a). Looking shifty but telling the truth: The effect of witness demeanour on mock jurors’ perceptions. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 21(2), 297–310. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2013.815600
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McKimmie, B. M., Masser, B. M., & Bongiorno, R. (2014b). What counts as rape? The effect of offense prototypes, victim stereotypes, and participant gender on how the complainant and defendant are perceived. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29(12), 2273–2303. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260513518843
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McKimmie, B. M., Masser, B. M., Nitschke, F., Lee, H., & Schuller, R. A. (2020). The impact of schemas on decision-making in cases involving allegations of sexual violence. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 32(4), 420–439. https://doi.org/10.1080/10345329.2020.1829780
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyers, R. A., Seibold, D. R., & Kang, P. (2010). Examining argument in a naturally occurring jury deliberation. Small Group Research, 41(4), 452–473. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496410366308
   Google Scholar
• Millsteed, M., & McDonald, C. (2017). Attrition of sexual offence incidents across the Victorian criminal justice system. Crime Statistics Agency. https://www.crimestatistics.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/embridge_cache/emshare/original/public/2017/01/fd/8d51b2494/20170202_SexualOffenceAttrition_FinalReport.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Nitschke, F. T., Masser, B. M., McKimmie, B. M., & Riachi, M. (2021). Intoxicated but not incapacitated: Are there effective methods to assist juries in interpreting evidence of voluntary complainant intoxication in cases of rape? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(9-10), 4335–4359. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518790601
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Payne, D. L., Lonsway, K. A., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1999). Rape myth acceptance: Exploration of its structure and its measurement using the Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale. Journal of Research in Personality, 33(1), 27–68. https://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.1998.2238
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1988). Explanation-based decision making: Effects of memory structure on judgment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14(3), 521–533. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.14.3.521
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1992). Explaining the evidence: Tests of the story model for juror decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(2), 189–206. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.62.2.189
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1993). The story model for juror decision making. In R. Hastie (Ed.), Inside the juror: The psychology of juror decision making (pp. 192–221). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511752896.010
   Google Scholar
• Rumelhart, D. E. (1980). Schemata: The building blocks of cognition. In R. J. Spiro, B. C. Bruce, & W. F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension: Perspectives from cognitive psychology, linguistics, artificial intelligence, and education (pp. 33–58). Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Sampson, R. (2011). Acquaintance rape of college students. Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. https://popcenter.asu.edu/sites/default/files/problems/PDFs/Acquaintance_Rape_of_College_Students.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Sanchez, D. T., Fetterolf, J. C., & Rudman, L. A. (2012). Eroticizing inequality in the United States: The consequences and determinants of traditional gender role adherence in intimate relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 49(2–3), 168–183. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2011.653699
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schuller, R. A., McKimmie, B. M., Masser, B. M., & Klippenstine, M. A. (2010). Judgments of sexual assault: The impact of complainant emotional demeanor, gender and victim stereotypes. New Criminal Law Review, 13(4), 759–780. https://doi.org/10.1525/nclr.2010.13.4.759
   Google Scholar
• Schuller, R. A., & Wall, A.-M. (1998). The effects of defendant and complainant intoxication on mock jurors’ judgments of sexual assault. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22(4), 555–573. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1998.tb00177.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sexual Offences Act. (2003). (UK) s. 1.
   Google Scholar
• Sherman, J. W., Lee, A. Y., Bessenoff, G. R., & Frost, L. A. (1998). Stereotype efficiency reconsidered: Encoding flexibility under cognitive load. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(3), 589–606. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.3.589
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sherman, J. W., Macrae, C. N., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2000). Attention and stereotyping: Cognitive constraints on the construction of meaningful social impressions. European Review of Social Psychology, 11(1), 145–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/14792772043000022
   Google Scholar
• Sivasubramaniam, D., McGuinness, M., Coulter, D., Klettke, B., Nolan, M., & Schuller, R. (2020). Jury decision-making: The impact of engagement and perceived threat on verdict decisions. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 27(3), 346–365. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2020.1793819
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, A. E., & Humphreys, M. S. (2006). Evaluation of unsupervised semantic mapping of natural language with Leximancer concept mapping. Behavior Research Methods, 38(2), 262–279. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192778
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, O. (2018). Rape trials in England and Wales: Observing justice and rethinking rape myths. Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Sotiriadou, O., Brouwers, J., & Le, T.-A. (2014). Choosing a qualitative data analysis tool: A comparison of NVivo and Leximancer. Annals of Leisure Research, 17(2), 218–234. https://doi.org/10.1080/11745398.2014.902292
   Google Scholar
• Stasser, G., & Titus, W. (1987). Effects of information load and percentage of shared information on the dissemination of unshared information during group discussion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(1), 81–93. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.53.1.81
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• StataCorp. (2019). Stata statistical software: Release 16. StataCorp LLC.
   Google Scholar
• St. George, S., Denne, E., & Stolzenberg, S. N. (2021). Blaming children: How rape myths manifest in defense attorneys’ questions to children testifying about child sexual abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605211023485
   Google Scholar
• St. George, S., Garcia-Johnson, A., Denne, E., & Stolzenberg, S. N. (2020). ‘Did you ever fight back?’ jurors’ questions to children testifying in criminal trials about alleged sexual abuse. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 47(8), 1032–1054. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854820935960
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Stuart, S. M., McKimmie, B. M., & Masser, B. M. (2019). Rape perpetrators on trial: The effect of sexual assault–related schemas on attributions of blame. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 34(2), 310–336. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260516640777
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Studebaker, C. A. (2017). Integrating concepts of trial advocacy into juror decision-making research. In M. B. Kovera (Ed.), The psychology of juries (pp. 59–82). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000026-004
   Google Scholar
• Temkin, J., Gray, J. M., & Barrett, J. (2018). Different functions of rape myth use in court: Findings from a trial observation study. Feminist Criminology, 13(2), 205–226. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085116661627
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tuckey, M. R., & Brewer, N. (2003). The influence of schemas, stimulus ambiguity, and interview schedule on eyewitness memory over time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 9(2), 101–118. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-898X.9.2.101
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Ayres, P. (2005). Research on cognitive load theory and its design implications for e-learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(3), 5–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504793
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waters, N. L., & Hans, V. P. (2009). A jury of one: Opinion formation, conformity, and dissent on juries. Journal of Empirical Studies, 6(3), 513–540. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-1461.2009.01152.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Westera, N. J., McKimmie, B. M., Kebbell, M. R., Milne, R., & Masser, B. (2015). Does the narrative style of video evidence influence judgements about rape complainant testimony? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 29(5), 637–646. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3146
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ziemke, M. H., & Brodsky, S. (2015). To flatter the jury: Ingratiation during closing arguments. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 22(5), 688–700. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2014.965296
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar