Effects of cooperation on information disclosure in mock-witness interviews

IF 2.2 2区 社会学 Q1 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY
Alejandra De La Fuente Vilar, Robert Horselenberg, Leif A. Strömwall, Sara Landström, Lorraine Hope, Peter J. van Koppen
{"title":"Effects of cooperation on information disclosure in mock-witness interviews","authors":"Alejandra De La Fuente Vilar,&nbsp;Robert Horselenberg,&nbsp;Leif A. Strömwall,&nbsp;Sara Landström,&nbsp;Lorraine Hope,&nbsp;Peter J. van Koppen","doi":"10.1111/lcrp.12167","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Purpose</h3>\n \n <p>Forensic interviewers often face witnesses who are unwilling to cooperate with the investigation. In this experimental study, we examined the extent to which cooperativeness instructions affect information disclosure in a witness investigative interview.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>One hundred and thirty-six participants watched a recorded mock-crime and were interviewed twice as mock-witnesses. They were randomly assigned to one of four conditions instructing different levels of cooperativeness: Control (no instructions), Cooperation, No Cooperation, and No Cooperation plus Cooperation. The cooperativeness instructions aimed to influence how participants’ perceived the costs and benefits of cooperation. We predicted that Cooperation and No Cooperation instructions would increase and decrease information disclosure and accuracy, respectively.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>We found decreased information disclosure and, to a lesser extent, accuracy in the No Cooperation and No Cooperation plus Cooperation conditions. In a second interview, the shift of instructions from No Cooperation to Cooperation led to a limited increase of information disclosure at no cost of accuracy. Cooperativeness instructions partially influenced the communication strategies participants used to disclose or withhold information.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Our results demonstrate the detrimental effects of uncooperativeness on information disclosure and, to a lesser extent, the accuracy of witness statements. We discuss the implications of a lack of witness cooperation and the importance of gaining witness cooperation to facilitate information disclosure in investigative interviews.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":18022,"journal":{"name":"Legal and Criminological Psychology","volume":"25 2","pages":"133-149"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2020-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/lcrp.12167","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Legal and Criminological Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/lcrp.12167","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Purpose

Forensic interviewers often face witnesses who are unwilling to cooperate with the investigation. In this experimental study, we examined the extent to which cooperativeness instructions affect information disclosure in a witness investigative interview.

Methods

One hundred and thirty-six participants watched a recorded mock-crime and were interviewed twice as mock-witnesses. They were randomly assigned to one of four conditions instructing different levels of cooperativeness: Control (no instructions), Cooperation, No Cooperation, and No Cooperation plus Cooperation. The cooperativeness instructions aimed to influence how participants’ perceived the costs and benefits of cooperation. We predicted that Cooperation and No Cooperation instructions would increase and decrease information disclosure and accuracy, respectively.

Results

We found decreased information disclosure and, to a lesser extent, accuracy in the No Cooperation and No Cooperation plus Cooperation conditions. In a second interview, the shift of instructions from No Cooperation to Cooperation led to a limited increase of information disclosure at no cost of accuracy. Cooperativeness instructions partially influenced the communication strategies participants used to disclose or withhold information.

Conclusions

Our results demonstrate the detrimental effects of uncooperativeness on information disclosure and, to a lesser extent, the accuracy of witness statements. We discuss the implications of a lack of witness cooperation and the importance of gaining witness cooperation to facilitate information disclosure in investigative interviews.

Abstract Image

模拟证人访谈中合作对信息披露的影响
目的:法医面试官经常面对不愿配合调查的证人。在本实验研究中,我们考察了合作指示对证人调查访谈中信息披露的影响程度。方法:136名参与者观看了一段模拟犯罪的录像,并作为模拟证人接受了两次采访。他们被随机分配到四个指示不同合作程度的条件之一:控制(没有指示)、合作、不合作、不合作加合作。合作性指令旨在影响参与者对合作成本和收益的感知。我们预测,合作指令和不合作指令分别会增加和降低信息披露和准确性。结果:在“不合作”和“不合作加合作”条件下,信息披露有所减少,准确性有所降低。在第二次采访中,从“不合作”到“合作”的指示转变导致信息披露的有限增加,但不以准确性为代价。合作性指令部分影响了被试在披露或隐瞒信息时的沟通策略。结论:我们的研究结果表明,不合作对信息披露的不利影响,并在较小程度上影响证人陈述的准确性。我们讨论了缺乏证人合作的影响和获得证人合作的重要性,以促进调查采访中的信息披露。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
4.30%
发文量
31
期刊介绍: Legal and Criminological Psychology publishes original papers in all areas of psychology and law: - victimology - policing and crime detection - crime prevention - management of offenders - mental health and the law - public attitudes to law - role of the expert witness - impact of law on behaviour - interviewing and eyewitness testimony - jury decision making - deception The journal publishes papers which advance professional and scientific knowledge defined broadly as the application of psychology to law and interdisciplinary enquiry in legal and psychological fields.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信