Advancing our understanding of intergenerational continuity in antisocial behavior

This commentary reviews the major findings of this set of 4 papers on intergenerational continuity in antisocial behavior; it identifies strengths and remaining challenges, and discusses potential policy implications of the research. As a group, these researchers have raised the methodological bar for future work in this area, using prospective designs with multiple informants and methods to test the influences of G2 parenting and adolescent antisocial behavior in mediating continuity between G1 parenting and G3 early disruptive behavior. The pattern of findings is discussed with respect to gender of G2 and social context. The inherent challenges of conducting intergenerational research are also highlighted, within the context of offering recommendations for improving future intergenerational investigations and their feasibility.     

Acknowledgment of Reviewers

Dedication

Acknowledgment of Reviewers     

A Lay Perspective on the Accuracy of Eyewitness Testimony1

To understand more about what laypeople think they “know” about eyewitness testimony, 276 jury-eligible university students were asked to indicate what factors they believe affect the accuracy of eyewitness testimony. In contrast to the large proportion of eyewitness-memory research that concerns system variables, the lay respondents overwhelmingly generated factors related to estimator variables, while system-variable factors such as police questioning and identification procedures were rarely mentioned. Respondents also reported that their own common sense and everyday life experiences were their most important sources of information about the accuracy of eyewitness testimony. Not only do these results clarify the need for further research on the lay perspective of eyewitness testimony, but they also provide some insight into the way in which many jurors might approach cases involving eyewitness evidence.     

Weapon Focus and Gender Differences in Eyewitness Accuracy: Arousal Versus Salience

Competing theories of arousal versus salience and object enhancement vs. reduced perceptual processing as explanations for the weapon focus effect in eyewitness identification were examined. Male and female students ( N = 200) viewed a videotape of a male or female intruder rudely barging into a classroom while carrying a book, a gun, or an unusual object and demanding to know the whereabouts of another student. Feature accuracy recall of both the intruder and the object were assessed on a postexperimental questionnaire. Results supported the salience and reduced-perceptual-processing hypotheses, suggesting that weapon focus may be a special instance of a more general salient object effect. An own-gender bias in eyewitness identification was replicated when no weapon or unusual objects distracted eyewitnesses, but was reversed when a weapon or an unusual object was present.     

Preschool boys' development of emotional self-regulation strategies in a sample at risk for behavior problems

Little longitudinal research has been conducted on changes in children's emotional self-regulation strategy (SRS) use after infancy, particularly for children at risk. In this study, the authors examined changes in boys' emotional SRS from toddlerhood through preschool. Repeated observational assessments using delay of gratification tasks at ages 2, 3, and 4 years were examined with both variable- and person-oriented analyses in a low-income sample of boys (N = 117) at risk for early problem behavior. Results were consistent with theory on emotional SRS development in young children. Children initially used more emotion-focused SRS (e.g., comfort seeking) and transitioned to greater use of planful SRS (e.g., distraction) by 4 years of age. Person-oriented analysis using trajectory analysis found similar patterns from 2 to 4 years, with small groups of boys showing delayed movement away from emotion-focused strategies or delay in the onset of regular use of distraction. The results provide a foundation for future researchers to examine the development of SRS in low-income young children.     

Mimicry and Investigative Interviewing: Using Deliberate Mimicry to Elicit Information and Cues to Deceit

We examined the effect of deliberate mimicry on eliciting (accurate) information and cues to deceit. Mimicry is considered to facilitate cooperation and compliance in truth tellers, whereas liars are constrained to provide detail. We therefore expected truth tellers to be more detailed than liars, particularly after being mimicked. A total of 165 participants told the truth or lied about a meeting they attended. During the interview, an interviewer mimicked half of the participants. Truth tellers were more detailed than liars, but only in the ‘mimicry present’ condition. Truth tellers also gave more accurate units of information than liars, and the difference was most pronounced in the ‘mimicry present’ condition. Mimicry as a tool for eliciting information and cues to deceit fits well with the emerging ‘interviewing to detect deception’ literature, particularly in the ‘encouraging interviewees to say more’ approach. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Writers Blocked: On the Wrongs of Research Co-authorship and Some Possible Strategies for Improvement

The various problems associated with co-authorship of research articles have attracted much attention in recent years. We believe that this (hopefully) growing awareness is a very welcome development. However, we will argue that the particular and increasing importance of authorship and the harmful implications of current practices of research authorship for junior researchers have not been emphasised enough. We will use the case of our own research area (bioethics) to illustrate some of the pitfalls of current publishing practices—in particular, the impact on the evaluation of one’s work in the area of employment or funding. Even where there are explicit guidelines, they are often disregarded. This disregard, which is often exemplified through the inflation of co-authorship in some research areas, may seem benign to some of us; but it is not. Attribution of co-authorship for reasons other than merit in relation to the publication misrepresents the work towards that publication, and generates unfair competition. We make a case for increasing awareness, for transparency and for more explicit guidelines and regulation of research co-authorship within and across research areas. We examine some of the most sensitive areas of concern and their implications for researchers, particularly junior ones, and we suggest several strategies for future action.