The perceived guilt and innocence of adults with developmental language disorder and adults with typical language during a mock interrogation

Abstract

PurposeThis study examined if there were differences in the guilty and not guilty judgments of adults with developmental language disorder (DLD) and those with typical language (TL) functioning. MethodTwenty-four adults (12 DLD, 12 TL) were assigned to either the guilty or not guilty conditions. Those in the guilty condition engaged in a mock crime while those in the not guilty condition were informed that a crime had been committed. Peer jurors were presented with video interrogations of the DLD (6 guilty, 6 not guilty) and TL (6 guilty, 6 not guilty) participants and were asked to make categorical judgments of guilty and not guilty and to indicate confidence in their judgments. ResultsIn general, peer jurors were not accurate in their judgments of the accused, and were more likely to judge individuals with DLD as guilty relative to accused individuals with TL. Peer jurors were particularly poor at judging innocent adults with DLD as not guilty and guilty adults with TL as guilty. Despite this, peer jurors were more confident than not in their guilty and not guilty determinations. ConclusionsPeer jurors are confident in their judgments of the guilt of the accused when they should not be, particularly in the case of accused adults with DLD. Implications are discussed.