The interpretation of witness evidence plays a pivotal role in shaping the outcome of many injury cases. Understanding the emotional states and intentions of witnesses can be a crucial factor in assessing the credibility of their testimony. Our discussion of the theory of constructed emotions provides valuable insights for lawyers when interpreting witness evidence. This theory challenges traditional views of emotions, emphasizing their dynamic, context-dependent nature.
The theory of constructed emotion, often associated with the work of psychologist Lisa Feldman Barrett, suggests that emotions are not fixed, universal categories, but rather constructed by our brains based on a combination of physical sensations, past experiences, and cultural context. According to this theory, our brains use a general blueprint to create a wide range of emotional experiences, and these experiences can vary from person to person and culture to culture. It challenges the idea that there are discrete, universally recognizable emotions and emphasizes the role of individual and cultural factors in shaping our emotional responses.
Body language and facial expressions can play a significant role in determining a witness’s credibility and whether they are accepted as being truthful in legal proceedings. These non-verbal cues are often used by judges, jurors, and lawyers to assess the demeanour and reliability of witnesses. However, the theory of constructed emotions doesn’t negate the importance of body language and facial expressions in the legal context.
The theory does emphasize that the interpretation of these cues can be context-dependent and subject to individual and cultural variation. So, while these cues remain important, legal professionals should be aware of the theory’s principles when assessing the significance of facial expressions and body language, taking into consideration the dynamic and constructed nature of emotions.
Here are some recommendations in light of this theory of emotions:
Consider the Context
The theory of constructed emotions underscores the importance of considering the broader context in which witness evidence is presented. Rather than assuming that a particular facial expression or body language represents a fixed emotion, lawyers, judges and jurors should evaluate the circumstances and the witness’s individual experiences that may contribute to their emotional expressions.
Recognize Individual Differences
Just as emotions are constructed differently from one person to another, witnesses may exhibit varying emotional responses to the same situation. Lawyers should acknowledge these individual differences and not rely solely on universal emotional interpretations.
Be Mindful of Cultural Nuances
Cultural factors significantly influence emotional expression. Lawyers should be sensitive to cultural nuances and variations in the interpretation of emotional cues, ensuring that witness evidence is assessed in a culturally informed manner.
Encourage Emotional Awareness
The theory of constructed emotions highlights that our emotional experiences are not fixed but rather influenced by our perceptions and interpretations. Lawyers can encourage witnesses to reflect on their emotional experiences and describe their feelings, allowing for a more comprehensive assessment of their testimony.
Seek Corroborating Evidence
When assessing witness testimony, lawyers should consider corroborating evidence that aligns with or contradicts the emotional expressions described. Additional witnesses, documents, or physical evidence can provide valuable context and support in evaluating the credibility of the testimony.
Trial judges are accorded substantial deference with regard to findings of fact, particularly where they relate to witness credibility. The trial court hears and sees the witnesses testify and is able to evaluate their demeanour together with the content of their testimony. It is therefore important for the court to accurately determine the meaning of a witnesses demeanour.
In the civil litigation arena, understanding the theory of constructed emotions can enhance the interpretation of witness evidence. By recognizing the dynamic and context-dependent nature of emotions, lawyers, judges and jurors can better assess the credibility of witnesses, ensuring that justice is served with a deeper understanding of the complexities of human emotions.