Children's testimony: Research findings and policy implications

Abstract

Traditionally the British legal system has taken a sceptical attitude toward the testimony of children, reflected in the competency requirement, the corroboration rule and the judicial caution. However, recent psychological research has suggested that children, properly interviewed, can provide invaluable testimony in securing convictions in cases of sexual or physical abuse. Research suggests that children's spontaneous accounts of events are generally accurate, and that suggestibility can be greatly reduced by appropriate questioning techniques. Partly as a result of such research, the legal hurdles surrounding children's evidence have been dismantled and procedural innovations, such as the use of the Videolink and videotaped interviews introduced. Empirical research demonstrates the success of the Videolink and a similar evaluation is planned for videotaped interviews. The latter has highlighted the need for a new research agenda which would include the impact of biased or repeated questioning, and requests to children from abusers to lie or keep secrets.     

An Empirical Test of the Behaviour Analysis Interview

The present experiment is the first empirical test of the Behaviour Analysis Interview (BAI), an interview technique developed by F. E. Inbau, J. E. Reid, J. P. Buckley, & B. C. Jayne (2001) designed to evoke different verbal and non-verbal responses from liars and truth-tellers. Inbau et al. expect liars to be less helpful than truth-tellers in investigations and to exhibit more nervous behaviours. Just the opposite predictions, however, follow from the deception literature, which notes that liars take their credibility less for granted and are therefore more aware of their responses and their impact on others. This suggests that liars' answers should be more helpful than truth-tellers' answers, and liars' non-verbal responses should appear more relaxed than truth-tellers' non-verbal responses. In the present experiment, 40 participants (undergraduate students) lied or told the truth about an event during a BAI interview. The interviews were coded according to Inbau et al.'s guidelines. The results showed that, compared to liars, truth-tellers (a) were more naive and evasive when explaining the purpose of the interview, and (b) were less likely to name someone who they felt certain did not commit the crime. Truth-tellers also exhibited more nervous behaviours. The results were consistent with the predictions of the deception literature, and directly opposed to the predictions of BAI.     

Motivational Interviewing as Governmentality: Shaping Victims of Men’s Violence into Responsible Subjects?

Motivational interviewing (MI) is an evidence-based counselling method that has spread rapidly in Sweden during the last two decades. It is a technique designed to empower individuals to change an unwanted life situation. Through interviews with a strategic sample of persons engaged in work with men’s violence against women, this article critically examines the use of MI in this context. By analysing the interviews from a governmentality perspective, it is suggested that MI is a technique to produce a knowledgeable, strong, and self-animated feminine subject, capable of making the “right” choices and subsequently “choosing” to avoid violence. Although this may be beneficial to some, the analysis suggests that this places primary responsibility on the woman subjected to violence for her predicament and future. This may in turn increase the risk of self-blame for those who cannot follow through with their commitment, and obscure and renounce the role and responsibility of both the counsellor and the rationalized neoliberal welfare state. In addition, the one-sided focus on the individual largely ignores the surrounding context, which may obscure men’s responsibility for violence. This may ultimately undermine the collective formation of a political subject from women’s shared experience of violence.     

Police interviewing styles and confessions in Japan

Psychological studies of suspects' confessions have been conducted mostly in English-speaking and European countries, and the results may not generalise to countries whose cultures and policing practices differ. In particular, the difference between Japanese and Western laws may affect the roles that police interviewers play in suspects' confessions. This study examined the interviewing techniques used by Japanese police officers and associated features of the suspects' confessions. An extensive questionnaire was completed by 276 police officers across Japan. Detailed ratings of their interview techniques were factor analysed, yielding five factors: Presentation of Evidence, Confrontation, Rapport Building, Active Listening, and Discussion of the Crime. Based on these five factors, we identified four interviewing styles: Evidence-focused, Confrontational, Relationship-focused, and Undifferentiated. When interrogators employed the Relationship-focused interviewing style, suspects were more likely to make full confessions and to provide new information. By contrast, suspects were more likely to make partial confessions and were less cooperative when the police officers employed an Evidence-focused style.     

Sex offenders’ perceptions of the effectiveness and fairness of humanity,dominance, and displaying an understanding of cognitive distortions in police interviews: A vignette study

Abstract

Forty-three convicted sex offenders read each of four different offence vignettes that involved a man forcing a female victim into sex and the offender's subsequent police interview. The experimental manipulation involved giving participants each of four different scenarios concerning how the police interviewed the offender. These were interviews characterized by humanity, dominance, displaying an understanding of sex offenders’ cognitive distortions, or a neutral, control interview. Participants were required to rate the interviews on a variety of dimensions, such as the offender's likelihood of confessing, and the fairness of the interview. Where participants were told the man had been interviewed with humanity and compassion, they rated the offender as more likely to confess and rated the interview as fairer than the other conditions. In contrast, participants rated the offender interviewed with a dominant approach as less likely to confess, and for this procedure to be less fair than the other conditions. Displaying an understanding of sex offenders’ cognitive distortions appeared to have had no influence on perceived likelihood of confessions but was perceived to make the crime appear less serious.