En el presente experimento se ocupa del impacto persuasivo de las declaraciones de testigos presenciales ante jurados simulados. Presentamos a nuestros sujetos un juicio hipotético en el que la evidencia principal en contra del acusado es la declaración de un testigo presencial. Se mantiene siempre constante el contenido del testimonio, manipulando el atractivo físico del testigo, la percepción de su status/poder y su estilo de habla mediante un entrenamiento especial. Los resultados se discuten a la luz del modelo de probabilidades de elaboración de Petty y Cacioppo (1986).
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndersonN. H. (1971). Integration theory and attitude change. Psychological Review, 78, 171–206.
2.
BradacJ. J.WisegarverR. (1984). Adscribed status, lexical diversity and accent: determinants of perceived status, solidarity and control of speech style. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 3, 239–256.
3.
ChaikenS. (1987). The heuristic model of persuasion. EnZannaM. P.OlsonJ. M.HermanC. P. (Eds.). Social Influence: the Ontario Symposium. Vol. 5. Hillsdale. Erlbaum.
4.
DillehayR. C. (1990). Conducta de abogados y dinámica psicológica. EnGarzónA. (Ed.). Psicología y Justicia. Valencia. Promolibro.
5.
DillehayR. C.NietzelM. T. (1986). Psychological consultation in trial preparation and conduct. EnKaplanM. F. (Ed.). The impact of social psychology on procedural justice. Springfield. Charles Thomas.
6.
EaglyA. H.ChaikenS. (1984). Cognitive theories of persuasion. EnBerkowitzL. (Ed.). Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Vol. 17. Orlando. Academic Press.
7.
FishbeinM. (1980). A theory of reasoned action: some applications and implications. EnHoweH.PageM. (Eds.). Nebraska Symposium on motivation. Lincoln. University of Nebraska Press.
8.
GillesH.WiemannJ. M. (1964). Language, social comparison and power. EnBergerC. R.ChafeeS. (Eds.). Handbook of communication science. Newbury Park. Sage. 1987.
9.
McguireW. J. Inducing resistance to persuasion: some contemporary approaches. En BerkowitzL. (Ed). Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Vol. 1. Nueva York. Academic Press.
10.
NietzelM. T.DillehayR. C. (1986). Psychological consultation in the courtroom. Nueva York. Pergamon Press.
11.
PettyR. E.CacioppoJ. T. (1986). Communication and Persuasion: central and peripheral routes to attitude change. Nueva York. Springer-Verlag.
12.
StaatsC. K.StaatsA. W. (1957). Meaning established by classical conditioning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54, 74–80.
13.
WellsG. L.LindsayR. C. L. (1983). How do people infer the accuracy of eyewitness memory? Studies of performance and a metamemory analysis. EnLloyd-BostockS. M. A.CliffordB. R. (Eds.). Evaluating Witness Evidence: recent psychological research and new perspectives. Chichester. Wiley.
14.
ZajoncR. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Monoraph Suplement, 9, 1–27.
15.
ZajoncR. B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist, 35, 151–175.
