Alejandra De La Fuente Vilar, Robert Horselenberg, Leif A. Strömwall, Sara Landström, Lorraine Hope, Peter J. van Koppen
{"title":"模拟证人访谈中合作对信息披露的影响","authors":"Alejandra De La Fuente Vilar, Robert Horselenberg, Leif A. Strömwall, Sara Landström, Lorraine Hope, 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":null,"pages":null},"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":"{\"title\":\"Effects of cooperation on information disclosure in mock-witness interviews\",\"authors\":\"Alejandra De La Fuente Vilar, Robert Horselenberg, Leif A. Strömwall, Sara Landström, Lorraine Hope, 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\":null,\"pages\":null},\"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}","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}
Effects of cooperation on information disclosure in mock-witness interviews
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.
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.