Arman Raver, Torun Lindholm, Sofie Liljestrand Hassoun, Charlotte Alm
{"title":"审问问题对本地和非本地目击者:证人可信度的作用","authors":"Arman Raver, Torun Lindholm, Sofie Liljestrand Hassoun, Charlotte Alm","doi":"10.1111/lcrp.12301","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Purpose</h3>\n \n <p>This study examined how the language of eyewitnesses (native vs. non-native) and their perceived credibility influence the interrogation questions posed to them.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Method</h3>\n \n <p>In a previous study (Raver et al., <i>Frontiers in Psychology</i>, 2023, 14, 1240822), participants, assuming the role of interrogators, watched either a native or non-native speaking eyewitness testify and were then asked to formulate interrogation questions to gather more information, as well as rate the witness’s credibility. In the present study, a new set of participants (<i>N</i> = 207) evaluated a subset of these interrogation questions in terms of (1) how leading they were, (2) whether the interrogator cast doubt on something the witness had said and (3) how open-ended they were. The moderating role of witnesses’ perceived credibility on question framing was also examined.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Results showed no main effect of language (native vs. non-native) on any question type. For native speakers, lower (vs. higher) credibility led to more expressions of doubt. For non-native speakers, credibility levels (high vs. low) had no effect on question framing.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>These findings highlight complex patterns in interrogation questioning that vary by witness language and perceived credibility, revealing a critical area for further exploration to mitigate potential cross-linguistic biases. We discuss the study’s limitations and advocate for future research in diverse legal contexts to ensure fairness and uphold the integrity of witness testimonies across languages.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":18022,"journal":{"name":"Legal and Criminological Psychology","volume":"30 2","pages":"231-243"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/lcrp.12301","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Interrogation questions to native and non-native eyewitnesses: The role of witness credibility\",\"authors\":\"Arman Raver, Torun Lindholm, Sofie Liljestrand Hassoun, Charlotte Alm\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/lcrp.12301\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Purpose</h3>\\n \\n <p>This study examined how the language of eyewitnesses (native vs. non-native) and their perceived credibility influence the interrogation questions posed to them.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Method</h3>\\n \\n <p>In a previous study (Raver et al., <i>Frontiers in Psychology</i>, 2023, 14, 1240822), participants, assuming the role of interrogators, watched either a native or non-native speaking eyewitness testify and were then asked to formulate interrogation questions to gather more information, as well as rate the witness’s credibility. In the present study, a new set of participants (<i>N</i> = 207) evaluated a subset of these interrogation questions in terms of (1) how leading they were, (2) whether the interrogator cast doubt on something the witness had said and (3) how open-ended they were. The moderating role of witnesses’ perceived credibility on question framing was also examined.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Results showed no main effect of language (native vs. non-native) on any question type. For native speakers, lower (vs. higher) credibility led to more expressions of doubt. For non-native speakers, credibility levels (high vs. low) had no effect on question framing.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>These findings highlight complex patterns in interrogation questioning that vary by witness language and perceived credibility, revealing a critical area for further exploration to mitigate potential cross-linguistic biases. We discuss the study’s limitations and advocate for future research in diverse legal contexts to ensure fairness and uphold the integrity of witness testimonies across languages.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18022,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Legal and Criminological Psychology\",\"volume\":\"30 2\",\"pages\":\"231-243\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/lcrp.12301\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Legal and Criminological Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/lcrp.12301\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Legal and Criminological Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/lcrp.12301","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: 0
摘要
目的本研究考察了目击者(母语和非母语)的语言及其感知可信度如何影响他们所面临的审问问题。在之前的一项研究中(Raver et al., Frontiers In Psychology, 2023, 14, 1240822),参与者扮演审讯者的角色,观看母语或非母语目击者作证,然后被要求制定审讯问题,以收集更多信息,并对证人的可信度进行评分。在本研究中,一组新的参与者(N = 207)从以下几个方面评估了这些审问问题的一部分:(1)他们的引导程度,(2)审讯者是否对证人所说的东西产生怀疑,(3)他们的开放性。证人的感知可信度对问题框架的调节作用也进行了审查。结果结果显示语言(母语和非母语)对任何问题类型都没有主要影响。对于以英语为母语的人来说,较低(相对于较高)的可信度导致更多的怀疑表达。对于非母语者,可信度水平(高与低)对问题框架没有影响。这些发现突出了审讯中复杂的提问模式会因证人语言和感知可信度的不同而不同,揭示了进一步探索以减轻潜在的跨语言偏见的关键领域。我们讨论了该研究的局限性,并倡导在不同的法律背景下进行未来的研究,以确保公平并维护跨语言证人证词的完整性。
Interrogation questions to native and non-native eyewitnesses: The role of witness credibility
Purpose
This study examined how the language of eyewitnesses (native vs. non-native) and their perceived credibility influence the interrogation questions posed to them.
Method
In a previous study (Raver et al., Frontiers in Psychology, 2023, 14, 1240822), participants, assuming the role of interrogators, watched either a native or non-native speaking eyewitness testify and were then asked to formulate interrogation questions to gather more information, as well as rate the witness’s credibility. In the present study, a new set of participants (N = 207) evaluated a subset of these interrogation questions in terms of (1) how leading they were, (2) whether the interrogator cast doubt on something the witness had said and (3) how open-ended they were. The moderating role of witnesses’ perceived credibility on question framing was also examined.
Results
Results showed no main effect of language (native vs. non-native) on any question type. For native speakers, lower (vs. higher) credibility led to more expressions of doubt. For non-native speakers, credibility levels (high vs. low) had no effect on question framing.
Conclusion
These findings highlight complex patterns in interrogation questioning that vary by witness language and perceived credibility, revealing a critical area for further exploration to mitigate potential cross-linguistic biases. We discuss the study’s limitations and advocate for future research in diverse legal contexts to ensure fairness and uphold the integrity of witness testimonies across languages.
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.