Demonstrating detail in investigative interviews—An examination of the DeMo technique

Attaining an uninterrupted free report (FR) is at the heart of best practice investigative interviewing guidance. However, witnesses/victims do not naturally provide detailed accounts. Techniques have been developed to counter-act this, such as a report everything (RE) instruction. This research examined the relative effectiveness of an addition to the RE component, a demonstration of the level of detail, using a behavioural exemplar, by describing an innocuous object; the Demonstration for More detail (DeMo) technique. Participants (N = 61) watched a mock crime video and asked to recall it using one of three instructions: (a) basic FR as the control, (b) RE instruction and (c) RE instruction plus DeMo technique. Participants who were given the DeMo technique recalled more details than both the control and RE groups. Accuracy rates were similarly high across all conditions. The implications of using the DeMo technique within an investigative interview are discussed.     

Examining the efficacy of truth/lie discussions in predicting and increasing the veracity of children's reports

This study investigated whether children's ability to reason about truths and lies influenced their truth-telling behavior. Four-six-year-old children (n=118) played a game that was intended to motivate children to use deception to hide a minor transgression. Next, an interviewer gave children one of four preliminary discussions. Children received a typical forensic truth/lie discussion (TLD), a developmentally appropriate and more elaborate TLD, or one of two discussions that controlled for the time spent conversing with children. Children were interviewed about the event. The results revealed that children's performance on the truth/lie questions did not predict their truth-telling behavior. Regardless of their performance on truth/lie questions, children who received TLD's gave more honest reports than children who did not receive TLD's. These results suggest that discussing truths and lies with children may promote truth-telling behavior. However, the results cast doubt on the validity of using children's performance on truth/lie questions as a measure of competency.     

The Role of Referent and Expert Power in Mutual Help

This study explored the roles of referent power (i.e., influence based on sense of identification) and expert power (i.e., influence based on knowledge and expertise) in Schizophrenics Anonymous (SA), a mutual-help group for persons experiencing a schizophrenia-related illness. The study describes SA participants' experience of referent and expert power with SA members, SA leaders, and with mental health professionals. It also examines whether or not referent and expert power ascribed to fellow SA participants predicts the perceived helpfulness of the group. One hundred fifty-six SA participants were surveyed. Participants reported experiencing higher levels of referent power with fellow SA members and leaders than with mental health professionals. They reported higher levels of expert power for mental health professionals and SA leaders than for SA members. The respondents' ratings of their SA group's helpfulness was significantly correlated with ratings of referent and expert power. Although expert power was the best independent predictor of helpfulness, a significant interaction between referent and expert power indicated that when members reported high referent power, expert power was not related to helpfulness. These results are interpreted to suggest that there are multiple forms of social influence at work in mutual help.     

Social antecedents of children's eyewtness testimony a single-subject experimental analysis

In a laboratory simulation, a single-subject design was used to examine the effects of two types of social influence on children's eyewitness testimony, which has not been the subject of systematic behavioral analyses. This study replicates and extends findings from group-comparison studies, and shows that a topic of pressing social importance is amenable to analysis at the individual level, and therefore, potentially, to a behavioral analysis.     

Aiding self-knowledge

ABSTRACT

Some self-knowledge must be arrived at by the subject herself, rather than being transmitted by another’s testimony. Yet in many cases the subject interacts with an expert in part because she is likely to have the relevant knowledge of their mind. This raises a question: what is the expert’s knowledge like that there are barriers to simply transmitting it by testimony? I argue that the expert’s knowledge is, in some circumstances, proleptic, referring to attitudes the subject would hold were she to reflect in certain ways. The expert’s knowledge cannot be transmitted by testimony because self-knowledge cannot be proleptic.     

Affirming Affectivity: On The Task of Philosophy in Lyotard’s Later Works

ABSTRACT

Jean-François Lyotard famously described the task of philosophy as “bearing witness to the differend”, a differend being a conflict that cannot be equitably solved due to the lack of a rule applicable to all parties involved. Lyotard expanded the notion of differend in his later works. With the name of “the differend itself”, Lyotard seeks to signal a more radical conflict: between articulate meaning and affect. This development changes the task of philosophy. In this article, bearing witness to the differend itself is conceptualized as a twofold process, consisting of a negative and a positive aspect. On the one hand, the differend itself cannot as such be written into language. On the other hand, however, philosophizing presupposes affect as its impetus. To signal this, an openness to affect and a freedom with regard to style are required, thereby showing that reason and affect are not opposed but presuppose each other.     

The moral obligations of trust

Moral obligation, Darwall argues, is irreducibly second personal. So too, McMyler argues, is the reason for belief supplied by testimony and which supports trust. In this paper, I follow Darwall in arguing that the testimony is not second personal ‘all the way down’. However, I go on to argue, this shows that trust is not fully second personal, which in turn shows that moral obligation is equally not second personal ‘all the way down’.     

Prosecutors' Perspectives on Clarifying Terms for Genitalia in Child Sexual Abuse Interviews

In investigative interviews with alleged victims of child sexual abuse, professionals must establish the nature of the alleged abuse by determining what body parts were involved in the offending. This can be difficult, however, because children often use colloquial (non‐anatomical) terms to describe genitalia, and there has been little direction for interviewers about clarifying these terms sufficiently to establish the charge. The aim of this study was to address the need for guidance from prosecutors about the level of clarity in terms required from a legal perspective, and how this clarity can be achieved. A focus group of nine prosecutors (representing all but one Australian State and Territory) were asked to consider what degree of clarity in terminology for genitalia was adequate and how such clarity could be achieved. Thematic analysis revealed that a reduction in specific questioning around genitalia would improve the usefulness of investigative interviews with children from a legal perspective. Recommendations for improving interviews about abuse with child witnesses are discussed.     

Can I borrow your alibi? The applicability of the verifiability approach to the case of an alibi witness

The present experiment tested the applicability of the verifiability approach to the case of an alibi witness. Pairs of truth tellers carried out non-criminal activities. Pairs of liars were separated whereby Member 1 carried out the same non-criminal activities as the pairs of truth tellers while Member 2 committed a mock crime. Participants were asked to provide statements about their whereabouts, whereby pairs of liars were requested to pretend that they carried out Member 1's activities together. Participants were informed that their statements would be assessed in terms of providing verifiable evidence that they had carried out the activities together. Results showed that 88% of the pairs were correctly classified by the verifiability approach. Groups differed in their strategies: Truth-tellers focused mainly on “staying with the truth”, and provided evidence that they were together, whereas liars attempted to make it difficult to refute their claims that they were together.