ORCID Profile
0000-0002-5324-0732
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
In Research Link Australia (RLA), "Research Topics" refer to ANZSRC FOR and SEO codes. These topics are either sourced from ANZSRC FOR and SEO codes listed in researchers' related grants or generated by a large language model (LLM) based on their publications.
Law | Criminal Law and Procedure | Cognitive Science | Decision Making
Criminal Justice | Expanding Knowledge in Psychology and Cognitive Sciences |
Publisher: American Psychological Association (APA)
Date: 2009
DOI: 10.1007/S10979-008-9134-Z
Abstract: It has been argued that psychologists should provide expert evidence to help jurors discriminate between accurate and inaccurate eyewitness identifications. In this article we compare the effects of judicial instruction with expert evidence that is either congruent or incongruent with the ground truth, focusing on juror ability to evaluate "real" eyewitness evidence. In contrast to studies which have employed "fictional" eyewitness designs, we found no appreciable effect of either congruent or incongruent expert evidence on participant-juror sensitivity to eyewitness accuracy. We discuss the role of methodology on the inferences and conclusions that can be made regarding the impact of eyewitness expert evidence.
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 12-2020
DOI: 10.1186/S41235-020-00264-Z
Abstract: Past research suggests that an uncritical or ‘lazy’ style of evaluating evidence may play a role in the development and maintenance of implausible beliefs. We examine this possibility by using a quasi-experimental design to compare how low- and high-quality evidence is evaluated by those who do and do not endorse implausible claims. Seven studies conducted during 2019–2020 provided the data for this analysis ( N = 746). Each of the seven primary studies presented participants with high- and/or low-quality evidence and measured implausible claim endorsement and evaluations of evidence persuasiveness (via credibility, value, and/or weight). A linear mixed-effect model was used to predict persuasiveness from the interaction between implausible claim endorsement and evidence quality. Our results showed that endorsers were significantly more persuaded by the evidence than non-endorsers, but both groups were significantly more persuaded by high-quality than low-quality evidence. The interaction between endorsement and evidence quality was not significant. These results suggest that the formation and maintenance of implausible beliefs by endorsers may result from less critical evidence evaluations rather than a failure to analyse. This is consistent with a limited rather than a lazy approach and suggests that interventions to develop analytical skill may be useful for minimising the effects of implausible claims.
Publisher: AMPCo
Date: 02-2012
DOI: 10.5694/MJA11.11321
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 09-2013
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 03-2017
DOI: 10.1016/J.SCIJUS.2016.11.005
Abstract: Human factors and their implications for forensic science have attracted increasing levels of interest across criminal justice communities in recent years. Initial interest centred on cognitive biases, but has since expanded such that knowledge from psychology and cognitive science is slowly infiltrating forensic practices more broadly. This article highlights a series of important findings and insights of relevance to forensic practitioners. These include research on human perception, memory, context information, expertise, decision-making, communication, experience, verification, confidence, and feedback. The aim of this article is to sensitise forensic practitioners (and lawyers and judges) to a range of potentially significant issues, and encourage them to engage with research in these domains so that they may adapt procedures to improve performance, mitigate risks and reduce errors. Doing so will reduce the ide between forensic practitioners and research scientists as well as improve the value and utility of forensic science evidence.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 19-03-2010
DOI: 10.1111/J.1465-3362.2010.00186.X
Abstract: The Magistrates Early Referral Into Treatment (MERIT) program is a ersionary program for people with substance use (primarily illicit drug) problems, based in New South Wales, Australia. The aim of this study was to assess factors relevant to reci ism among MERIT participants. A longitudinal study utilising administrative data was conducted. MERIT participants entering the program after 1 August 2004 and with a finalisation date of prior to 31 December 2005 were included in the study. Reci ism records for this cohort were obtained for the period 1 August 2004 and 31 December 2007 and linked to MERIT administrative data. Cox proportional hazards modelling was used to identify predictors of reci ism. A total of 1160 MERIT participants were included in the analysis. Compared to non-completers, completion of the MERIT program was associated with a 30% reduction in risk of reci ism. Factors associated with increased risk of reci ism following MERIT included principal drug other than cannabis and higher number of prior convictions. Discussion and Conclusions. Although the design of this study does not permit causal conclusions, these results suggest the MERIT program may be associated with reduced criminal offending. The identification of factors associated with increased risk of reci ism may be helpful in identifying participants in need of higher intensity interventions.[Larney S, Martire KA. Factors affecting criminal reci ism among participants in the Magistrates Early Referral Into Treatment (MERIT) program in New South Wales, Australia.
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 02-01-2014
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 20-09-2010
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 17-01-2011
Publisher: American Psychological Association (APA)
Date: 09-2020
DOI: 10.1037/XAP0000266
Publisher: American Psychological Association (APA)
Date: 08-2021
DOI: 10.1037/LHB0000457
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 02-2012
Publisher: American Psychological Association (APA)
Date: 2013
DOI: 10.1037/LHB0000027
Abstract: Standards published by the Association of Forensic Science Providers (2009, Standards for the formulation of evaluative forensic science expert opinion, Science & Justice, Vol. 49, pp. 161-164) encourage forensic scientists to express their conclusions in the form of a likelihood ratio (LR), in which the value of the evidence is conveyed verbally or numerically. In this article, we report two experiments (using undergraduates and Mechanical Turk recruits) designed to investigate how much decision makers change their beliefs when presented with evidence in the form of verbal or numeric LRs. In Experiment 1 (N = 494), participants read a summary of a larceny trial containing inculpatory expert testimony in which evidence strength (low, moderate, high) and presentation method (verbal, numerical) varied. In Experiment 2 (N = 411), participants read the same larceny trial, this time including either exculpatory or inculpatory expert evidence that varied in strength (low, high) and presentation method (verbal, numerical). Both studies found a reasonable degree of correspondence in observed belief change resulting from verbal and numeric formats. However, belief change was considerably smaller than Bayesian calculations would predict. In addition, participants presented with evidence weakly supporting guilt tended to "invert" the evidence, thereby counterintuitively reducing their belief in the guilt of the accused. This "weak evidence effect" was most apparent in the verbal presentation conditions of both experiments, but only when the evidence was inculpatory. These findings raise questions about the interpretability of LRs by jurors and appear to support an expectancy-based account of the weak evidence effect.
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 03-2008
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 06-2010
DOI: 10.1111/J.1753-6405.2010.00522.X
Abstract: To estimate the annual number of inmate separations from correctional centres in Australia in 2000/01 and 2005/06. Data on separations were obtained from the websites of each State and Territory government department responsible for prisons. Data on state and national prison population were obtained from the website of the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Three different methods of estimation (multiplier, multiplier adjusted for remand separations and back-projection) were applied to State, Territory and national data on prison population and separations in Australia. The median estimate (to the nearest thousand) of the number of inmate separations was 42,000 in 2000/01 and 44,000 in 2005/06 While the precise figures ought to be interpreted with some caution, our estimates suggest that approximately 44,500 separations from prison occurred in Australia in 2005/06. Each of these separation episodes is accompanied by an elevated risk of mortality therefore, these figures represent a substantial public health concern.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 2017
DOI: 10.1016/J.SCIJUS.2016.10.004
Abstract: The assignment of personal probabilities to form a forensic practitioner's likelihood ratio is a mental operation subject to all the frailties of human memory, perception and judgment. While we agree that beliefs expressed as coherent probabilities are neither 'right' nor 'wrong' we argue that debate over this fact obscures both the requirement for and consideration of the 'helpfulness' of practitioner's opinions. We also question the extent to which a likelihood ratio based on personal probabilities can realistically be expected to 'encapsulate all uncertainty'. Courts cannot rigorously assess a forensic practitioner's bare assertions of belief regarding evidential strength. At a minimum, information regarding the uncertainty both within and between the opinions of practitioners is required.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 18-01-2017
DOI: 10.1111/ADD.12669
Abstract: Reducing smoking prevalence among smokers from low socio-economic status (SES) is a preventative health priority. Financial stress (e.g. shortage of money or inability to pay bills) may be a major barrier to quitting smoking. This study evaluates the efficacy of a financial education and support programme coupled with pharmacotherapy at improving cessation rates at 8-month follow-up among Australian low SES smokers (people receiving a government pension or allowance). A two-group parallel block randomized (ratio 1 : 1) open-label clinical trial (RCT) with allocation concealment will be conducted. Allocation will be concealed to interviewers at data collection-points. The study will be conducted primarily by telephone with baseline, follow-up interviews and telephone-based support sessions. Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) delivery will be mail-based. Daily smokers who are interested in quitting smoking and are currently in receipt of government benefits (n = 1046) will be recruited through study advertisements placed in newspapers, posters placed in government social assistance agencies and Quitline telephone-based cessation support services. After completion of a baseline computer-assisted telephone interview, participants will be allocated randomly to control or intervention group using a permuted block approach. Participants in both groups will receive 8 weeks of free combination NRT plus Quitline support. Participants in the intervention group will also receive four telephone-delivered financial education and support sessions. The primary outcome measure will be prolonged abstinence (at 8-month follow-up) assessed using Russell Standard criteria and biochemically verified (urine cotinine). This is the first intervention study to evaluate the potential of co-managing financial stress as a means of enhancing smokers' capacity to quit smoking. Such an intervention may provide a scalable intervention to help low SES smokers to quit.
No related organisations have been discovered for Kristy Martire.
Start Date: 2014
End Date: 12-2017
Amount: $393,161.00
Funder: Australian Research Council
View Funded ActivityStart Date: 2022
End Date: 09-2025
Amount: $410,027.00
Funder: Australian Research Council
View Funded ActivityStart Date: 07-2016
End Date: 06-2020
Amount: $200,500.00
Funder: Australian Research Council
View Funded Activity