@article{ref1,
title="Dangerous decisions: A theoretical framework for understanding how judges assess credibility in the courtroom",
journal="Legal and criminological psychology",
year="2009",
author="Porter, Stephen and ten Brinke, Leanne",
volume="14",
number="1",
pages="119-134",
abstract="Purpose. Numerous wrongful convictions have brought into question the ability of judges and juries to accurately evaluate the credibility of witnesses, including defendants. Dangerous decisions theory (DDT) offers a theoretical framework to build our understanding of the decision-making process that can culminate in such injustices.Arguments. According to DDT, the reading of a defendant's face and emotional expressions play a major role in initiating a series of 'dangerous' decisions concerning his/her credibility. Specifically, potent judgments of trustworthiness occur rapidly upon seeing a defendant's face, subjectively experienced as intuition. Originally evolved to reduce the danger to the observer, the initial judgment - which may be unreliable - will be enduring and have a powerful influence on the interpretation and assimilation of incoming evidence concerning the defendant. Ensuing inferences will be irrational, but rationalized by the decision maker through his/her subjective schemas about trustworthiness and heuristics for identifying deceptive behaviour. Facilitated by a high level of motivation, a non-critical, tunnel vision assimilation of potentially disconfirming or ambiguous target information can culminate in a mistaken evaluation of guilt or innocence.Conclusions. Empirically based education and responsible expert testimony could serve to reduce such biases and improve legal decision-making.<p /><p>Language: en</p>",
language="en",
issn="1355-3259",
doi="10.1348/135532508X281520",
url="http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/135532508X281520"
}