通过三种研究范式预测儿童性虐待认知和情绪的暗示性问题

IF 2 2区 社会学 Q1 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY
Legal and Criminological Psychology Pub Date : 2026-08-10 Epub Date: 2025-12-15 DOI:10.1111/lcrp.70012
Elsa Gewehr, Marie Merschhemke, Simone Pülschen, Dietrich Pülschen, Renate Volbert
{"title":"通过三种研究范式预测儿童性虐待认知和情绪的暗示性问题","authors":"Elsa Gewehr,&nbsp;Marie Merschhemke,&nbsp;Simone Pülschen,&nbsp;Dietrich Pülschen,&nbsp;Renate Volbert","doi":"10.1111/lcrp.70012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Purpose</h3>\n \n <p>Although interviews are individual in nature, and suggestiveness is a major pitfall when questioning children, individual differences in interviewer bias and suggestiveness remain understudied. We assessed relationships between Cognitions and Emotions about Child Sexual Abuse (CECSA) with suggestive questioning and bias across three mock case studies and a meta-analytical integration.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>In all studies, participants filled in the scales of the CECSA questionnaire (Naive Confidence, Emotional Reactivity and Justice System Distrust) and read mock cases about children displaying unspecific behavioural symptoms, potentially triggering sexual abuse suspicions. In Study 1, 285 human sciences students further read interview transcripts and selected questions suitable to pose to the children. In Study 2, 241 police students read interview transcripts and freely formulated questions to pose to the children. In Study 3, 148 teaching students interviewed virtual children using natural language in a virtual reality simulation. Participants in Studies 1 and 2 additionally rated the abuse likelihood for the children with unspecific symptoms, whereby high ratings indicated biased mindsets.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Across three studies and their meta-analytical integration, we found substantial evidence that higher Naive Confidence and Emotional Reactivity but not Justice System Distrust scores significantly relate to stronger bias and suggestive questioning (<i>b</i> = .14–.37). The newly developed measures to assess suggestive questioning validly captured a unidimensional trait of suggestive questioning but showed unsatisfying reliability.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>The findings enhance our understanding of individual differences in suggestive questioning and bias and can inform the development, customisation and evaluation of interviewer training programs.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":18022,"journal":{"name":"Legal and Criminological Psychology","volume":"31 2","pages":"566-594"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/lcrp.70012","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Predicting suggestive questioning from cognitions and emotions about child sexual abuse across three study paradigms\",\"authors\":\"Elsa Gewehr,&nbsp;Marie Merschhemke,&nbsp;Simone Pülschen,&nbsp;Dietrich Pülschen,&nbsp;Renate Volbert\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/lcrp.70012\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Purpose</h3>\\n \\n <p>Although interviews are individual in nature, and suggestiveness is a major pitfall when questioning children, individual differences in interviewer bias and suggestiveness remain understudied. We assessed relationships between Cognitions and Emotions about Child Sexual Abuse (CECSA) with suggestive questioning and bias across three mock case studies and a meta-analytical integration.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>In all studies, participants filled in the scales of the CECSA questionnaire (Naive Confidence, Emotional Reactivity and Justice System Distrust) and read mock cases about children displaying unspecific behavioural symptoms, potentially triggering sexual abuse suspicions. In Study 1, 285 human sciences students further read interview transcripts and selected questions suitable to pose to the children. In Study 2, 241 police students read interview transcripts and freely formulated questions to pose to the children. In Study 3, 148 teaching students interviewed virtual children using natural language in a virtual reality simulation. Participants in Studies 1 and 2 additionally rated the abuse likelihood for the children with unspecific symptoms, whereby high ratings indicated biased mindsets.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Across three studies and their meta-analytical integration, we found substantial evidence that higher Naive Confidence and Emotional Reactivity but not Justice System Distrust scores significantly relate to stronger bias and suggestive questioning (<i>b</i> = .14–.37). The newly developed measures to assess suggestive questioning validly captured a unidimensional trait of suggestive questioning but showed unsatisfying reliability.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>The findings enhance our understanding of individual differences in suggestive questioning and bias and can inform the development, customisation and evaluation of interviewer training programs.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18022,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Legal and Criminological Psychology\",\"volume\":\"31 2\",\"pages\":\"566-594\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2026-08-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/lcrp.70012\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Legal and Criminological Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/lcrp.70012\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/12/15 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Legal and Criminological Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/lcrp.70012","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/12/15 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

虽然访谈本质上是个体的,而暗示性是询问儿童时的一个主要陷阱,但采访者偏见和暗示性的个体差异仍未得到充分研究。通过三个模拟案例研究和元分析整合,我们通过暗示性提问和偏见评估了儿童性虐待认知和情绪之间的关系。方法在所有研究中,参与者填写CECSA问卷(天真自信、情绪反应和司法系统不信任),并阅读关于儿童表现出非特异性行为症状,可能引发性虐待怀疑的模拟案例。在研究1中,285名人文科学学生进一步阅读访谈记录并选择适合向儿童提出的问题。在研究2中,241名警察学生阅读采访记录,并自由地向孩子们提出问题。在研究3中,148名教学学生在虚拟现实模拟中使用自然语言采访虚拟儿童。研究1和研究2的参与者还对具有非特异性症状的儿童的虐待可能性进行了评分,其中高评分表明有偏见的心态。通过三项研究及其元分析整合,我们发现大量证据表明,较高的天真自信和情绪反应,而不是司法系统不信任得分,与更强的偏见和暗示性提问显著相关(b = 0.14 - 0.37)。新开发的评估暗示性问题的方法有效地捕获了暗示性问题的单向度特征,但可靠性不令人满意。结论本研究结果增强了我们对暗示性提问和偏见的个体差异的理解,并可为采访者培训计划的制定、定制和评估提供信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Predicting suggestive questioning from cognitions and emotions about child sexual abuse across three study paradigms

Purpose

Although interviews are individual in nature, and suggestiveness is a major pitfall when questioning children, individual differences in interviewer bias and suggestiveness remain understudied. We assessed relationships between Cognitions and Emotions about Child Sexual Abuse (CECSA) with suggestive questioning and bias across three mock case studies and a meta-analytical integration.

Methods

In all studies, participants filled in the scales of the CECSA questionnaire (Naive Confidence, Emotional Reactivity and Justice System Distrust) and read mock cases about children displaying unspecific behavioural symptoms, potentially triggering sexual abuse suspicions. In Study 1, 285 human sciences students further read interview transcripts and selected questions suitable to pose to the children. In Study 2, 241 police students read interview transcripts and freely formulated questions to pose to the children. In Study 3, 148 teaching students interviewed virtual children using natural language in a virtual reality simulation. Participants in Studies 1 and 2 additionally rated the abuse likelihood for the children with unspecific symptoms, whereby high ratings indicated biased mindsets.

Results

Across three studies and their meta-analytical integration, we found substantial evidence that higher Naive Confidence and Emotional Reactivity but not Justice System Distrust scores significantly relate to stronger bias and suggestive questioning (b = .14–.37). The newly developed measures to assess suggestive questioning validly captured a unidimensional trait of suggestive questioning but showed unsatisfying reliability.

Conclusions

The findings enhance our understanding of individual differences in suggestive questioning and bias and can inform the development, customisation and evaluation of interviewer training programs.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书