Not all arguments are equally convincing–a given argument is often persuasive to some people and inadequate for others. We are interested in both the individual and argument level differences that make ‘everyday’ arguments, such as those on social media, persuasive. In three experiments, we investigate this question using a paradigm that consists of two parts; participant’s individually rate their beliefs about eight claims each referring to a political topic (e.g., “Abortion should be legal”), and rate the strength of related arguments which themselves have been manipulated by their quality (i.e., by how good the argument is based on the evidence presented within it). In all experiments we found participants thought the strongest arguments were those that also aligned with their own beliefs. Furthermore, this effect of belief alignment on the perceived strength of the argument was larger than the effect of the actual quality of the argument itself.

The drive for more realism in psychological experimentation has recently gained traction through the widespread availability of virtual reality (VR) equipment and software. To showcase the potential of VR scenarios, especially when combined with electroencephalography (EEG), I will present a recent EEG-VR study on “shoot-don’t-shoot” (SDS) decision-making with Authorised Firearms Officers (AFOs) in the UK. Each decision made by an AFO to discharge their firearm or not has substantial implications and so it is important to understand the neurocognitive processes that lead to such a decision. Consistently faster response times for AFOs than novices, suggest that our task was sensitive to their expertise. We further observed enhanced theta oscillations in experts related to risk assessment and decision-making. Additionally, sensorimotor signatures suggested that experts were “ready for action” sooner than novices. Overall, our study highlights the feasibility of EEG-VR paradigms for investigating police training and expertise more generally.

A common belief is that slower response times indicates lying. Yet, little is known about whether response latency in fact influences credibility judgements. In this study, we manipulated the response latency of senders’ (N = 12) answers to a simple question—what card they had drawn from a deck. The senders’ videos were cut into six different response latency conditions, ranging from 0.5s – 3s in .5s intervals. Receivers (N = 102) viewed one randomly selected video from each sender and rated their credibility on a 5-point scale. Videos of senders with longer response latencies were rated as less credible. However, the effect of response latency was modest, accounting for only 7% of the variance in credibility judgements. Further analyses showed that response latency accounted for less variance than individual differences in receiver credulity and sender credibility, questioning the usefulness of response latency as a cue in real time deception judgements.

Previous research on the impact of order of evidence presentation on legal judgments has produced mixed results, possibly due to different response modes: End-of-Sequence (EoS) or Step-by-Step (SbS). This paper investigates how the order of prosecution and defence evidence interacts with response mode to influence guilt judgment and verdicts. In Study 1 ($N = 202$), no order effect was found in the EoS mode; but a recency effect emerged when the first set of evidence was presented in EoS and the second in SbS, with participants viewing defence evidence last rated the probability of guilt lower and reached less Guilty verdicts. Study 2 ($N = 159$) confirmed a recency effect in an entire SbS context. Study 3 ($N = 95$) revealed no order effect when the first set was judged in SbS and the second in EoS. We discuss potential explanations for these findings and its implications for legal decision-making.