FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2155659712> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2155659712 endingPage "31" @default.
• W2155659712 startingPage "24" @default.
• W2155659712 abstract "Abstract Credibility assessment involves the ability to distinguish a liar from a truthful person. In the traditional homogeneous societies, we can find some relatively strong consensus, as well as common learned indicators, that enable the participants in legal procedures to use more or less similar factors to assess the of the testimonies given. Now, what about our current multiethnic societies where the different actors do not always have the same ethnic background and do not necessarily share the same cultural values? Can we find a similar consensus as well as common indicators? After examining what contemporary research tells us about the concept of and its assessment, I will undertake to explain how truth and deception are distinguished in a multiethnic context, and I will look at the rates of such judgments. Are they better or worse than judgments made by people of the same ethnic background? What criteria are used? The same or different ones? In conclusion, it is suggested that familiarity with the specific aspects of different cultures can produce more adequate judgments of credibility. In most legal procedures, starting from the interrogation of suspects to the evaluation of testimonies given during the actual trial, the different actors involved, that is, the police officers, the investigators, the trial judge, and the jury, all have, at some point, to decide whether the victim, an eyewitness or the accused are indeed telling the truth. This is what is called credibility It is also a type of assessment used daily by customs officers. To perform this type of evaluation and to obtain the best possible results, the assessors use personal strategies and indicators tfiat derive from their own knowledge and from previous learning on what can be used with the best possible efficiency to distinguish a liar from a truthful and honest person. In the traditional homogeneous societies, we can find some relatively strong consensus, as well as common learned indicators, that enable the participants in legal procedures to use more or less similar factors to assess the of the testimonies given. They are not necessarily most efficient in all cases, but they are perceived to be and are readily used. Now, what about our current multiethnic societies where the different actors do not always have the same ethnic background and do not necessarily share the same cultural values? Can we find a similar consensus and common indicators? In order to answer this question, which, as we all can imagine, has serious implications for the proper functioning of the judicial system, I will first examine what contemporary research tells us about the concept of and its assessment. The Concept of Credibility By definition, deception is an act whose deliberate intention is to create in others a belief or a conception that the deceiver knows to be false or erroneous (Zuckerman, DePaulo, & Rosenthal, 1981). In this sense, the of a testimony refers to the will or the intent of the witness in relation to die formulation of a trutfiful or deceptive statement (Kohnken, 1989). This notion is to be distinguished from that of the reliability or accuracy of the testimony, which basically refers to the degree of congruence that exists between the original stimulus situation and the statement made about what actually happened (Kohnken, 1989). Reliability or can be modified or altered by unconscious and involuntary errors made by the witness, errors that derive most of the time from memory failures, from misleading postevent information or biased instructions associated with die interrogation or from suboptimal conditions of perception in the original situation (see Lloyd-Bostock 8c Clifford, 1983; Shepherd, Ellis, & Davies, 1982; Wells & Loftus, 1984). There is a debate surrounding the meaning of the notion of and it can be described in relation to two conceptual approaches or strategies (Kohnken, 1989; Undeutsch, 1989). …" @default.
• W2155659712 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2155659712 creator A5080447338 @default.
• W2155659712 date "2007-01-01" @default.
• W2155659712 modified "2023-10-01" @default.
• W2155659712 title "The assessment of credibility: An analysis of truth and deception in a multiethnic environment." @default.
• W2155659712 cites W1483111534 @default.
• W2155659712 cites W1487133565 @default.
• W2155659712 cites W1501396433 @default.
• W2155659712 cites W1563249432 @default.
• W2155659712 cites W1584891123 @default.
• W2155659712 cites W1784440276 @default.
• W2155659712 cites W1964914326 @default.
• W2155659712 cites W1977013126 @default.
• W2155659712 cites W1983332115 @default.
• W2155659712 cites W1988834298 @default.
• W2155659712 cites W1992683634 @default.
• W2155659712 cites W1996678837 @default.
• W2155659712 cites W2010056161 @default.
• W2155659712 cites W2021307038 @default.
• W2155659712 cites W2029834134 @default.
• W2155659712 cites W2048672994 @default.
• W2155659712 cites W2084969212 @default.
• W2155659712 cites W2087952855 @default.
• W2155659712 cites W2103858766 @default.
• W2155659712 cites W2104723330 @default.
• W2155659712 cites W2107016431 @default.
• W2155659712 cites W2135789586 @default.
• W2155659712 cites W2136275365 @default.
• W2155659712 cites W2157583685 @default.
• W2155659712 cites W2316110271 @default.
• W2155659712 cites W601369081 @default.
• W2155659712 cites W613903950 @default.
• W2155659712 cites W624016951 @default.
• W2155659712 cites W69667147 @default.
• W2155659712 cites W97494875 @default.
• W2155659712 doi "https://doi.org/10.1037/cp2007005" @default.
• W2155659712 hasPublicationYear "2007" @default.
• W2155659712 type Work @default.
• W2155659712 sameAs 2155659712 @default.
• W2155659712 citedByCount "5" @default.
• W2155659712 countsByYear W21556597122013 @default.
• W2155659712 countsByYear W21556597122014 @default.
• W2155659712 countsByYear W21556597122016 @default.
• W2155659712 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2155659712 hasAuthorship W2155659712A5080447338 @default.
• W2155659712 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2155659712 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2155659712 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2155659712 hasConcept C2779267917 @default.
• W2155659712 hasConcept C2780224610 @default.
• W2155659712 hasConcept C77805123 @default.
• W2155659712 hasConceptScore W2155659712C15744967 @default.
• W2155659712 hasConceptScore W2155659712C17744445 @default.
• W2155659712 hasConceptScore W2155659712C199539241 @default.
• W2155659712 hasConceptScore W2155659712C2779267917 @default.
• W2155659712 hasConceptScore W2155659712C2780224610 @default.
• W2155659712 hasConceptScore W2155659712C77805123 @default.
• W2155659712 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W2155659712 hasLocation W21556597121 @default.
• W2155659712 hasOpenAccess W2155659712 @default.
• W2155659712 hasPrimaryLocation W21556597121 @default.
• W2155659712 hasRelatedWork W1521546696 @default.
• W2155659712 hasRelatedWork W1601917599 @default.
• W2155659712 hasRelatedWork W2013685637 @default.
• W2155659712 hasRelatedWork W2088960803 @default.
• W2155659712 hasRelatedWork W2115436664 @default.
• W2155659712 hasRelatedWork W2121551788 @default.
• W2155659712 hasRelatedWork W2132657620 @default.
• W2155659712 hasRelatedWork W2607886444 @default.
• W2155659712 hasRelatedWork W4224097729 @default.
• W2155659712 hasRelatedWork W2087115580 @default.
• W2155659712 hasVolume "48" @default.
• W2155659712 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2155659712 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2155659712 magId "2155659712" @default.
• W2155659712 workType "article" @default.