Interrogation questions to native and non‐native eyewitnesses: The role of witness credibility.
Saved in:
| Title: | Interrogation questions to native and non‐native eyewitnesses: The role of witness credibility. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Raver, Arman (AUTHOR), Lindholm, Torun (AUTHOR), Hassoun, Sofie Liljestrand (AUTHOR), Alm, Charlotte (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | Legal & Criminological Psychology. Sep2025, Vol. 30 Issue 2, p231-243. 13p. |
| Subjects: | Witnesses, Native language, Cross-cultural studies, Frames (Social sciences), Trust, Police questioning, Criminal procedure |
| Abstract: | 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Legal & Criminological Psychology is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 13553259 |
| DOI: | 10.1111/lcrp.12301 |
