Le médecin expert confronté aux confidences de la personne expertisée

During an expertise, if the expert “discovers” or is entrusted with information concerning an offence, should he report it to the authorities? Could the expert be sanctioned in the absence of denunciation of a tort or criminal act? The answer will be nuanced on a case-by-case basis. The expert confronted with the revelation of a crime or misdemeanor must decide in good conscience what he reveals in his report, or even report it to the prosecution.     

Rapport-building: Chat versus in-person witness interviews

Tactics recommended for rapport-building consist of verbal (e.g., finding common ground or shared experiences) and non-verbal (e.g., affirmations, displaying empathy) behaviours. Most of the research on rapport, however, has examined it in in-person contexts, where both verbal and non-verbal behaviours are present. In this study, we were interested in the effectiveness of rapport-building when conducting online witness interviews via chat, which de-emphasises the use non-verbal rapport behaviours, compared to traditional in-person interviews. Participants (N = 131) experienced a virtual reality (VR) scenario depicting a mock crime and were interviewed either in person or online via the chat function in Skype. Participants perceived rapport more positively when interviewed in person for three measures: attentiveness, trust and respect and expertise. Two other measures, cultural similarity and connected flow, were not perceived differently across interview medium. Participants interviewed online via chat disclosed similar amounts of crime-related information and were just as accurate as participants interviewed in person. We found that in-person interviews yielded better rapport ratings than interviews via chat but were equally productive in terms of the quality of information obtained, as measured by crime-related details and accuracy. If witnesses are to be interviewed via chat, investigators must carefully consider how to compensate for the lack of those non-verbal rapport tactics that influence witnesses' perceptions of attentiveness, trust/respect and investigator's expertise.     

The role of the psychologist expert witness: Provider of perspective and input

The definition and role of the expert witness is reviewed. Two conceptual systems for viewing the world, the scientific method and the adversarial system, are compared. The reconciliation and integration of these two discrepant systems are discussed in terms of input versus outcome. The rules of evidence, as well as problems of communication between the systems, are reviewed with the aim of providing expert witnesses with a better understanding of effective testimony. Finally, collaboration between the two systems is called for in order to provide guidelines for both neuropsychologists and attorneys.     

How expert witnesses' counterfactuals influence causal and responsibility attributions of mock jurors and expert judges

Past research has shown that counterfactual (“If…then…”) thoughts influence causal and responsibility attribution in the judicial context. However, little is known on whether and how the use of counterfactuals in communication affects lay jurors' and judges' evaluations. In two studies, we asked mock lay jurors (Study 1) and actual judges (Study 2) to read a medical malpractice case followed by an expert witness report, which included counterfactuals focused on either the physician, the patient, or external factors. Results showed that counterfactual focus had a strong effect on both lay jurors' and judges' causal and responsibility attributions. Counterfactual focus also moderated the effect of outcome foreseeability on responsibility attribution. Discussion focuses on how counterfactual communication can direct causal and responsibility attribution and reduce the importance of other factors known to influence judicial decision‐making. The potential implications of these findings in training programs and debiasing interventions are also discussed.     

The psychology of confessions: A comparison of expert and lay opinions

Despite a body of confessions research that is generally accepted in the scientific community, courts often exclude experts on the ground that such testimony would not assist the jury, which can use its common sense. To examine whether laypeople know the contents of expert testimony on confessions, we asked 151 lay participants to indicate their beliefs about 30 confession‐related statements used in a recent survey of 87 confession experts (Kassin et al., American Psychologist, 2018, 73, 63–80). Participants agreed with experts on only 10 of the 30 propositions, suggesting that much of the psychology of confessions is not common knowledge and that expert testimony can assist the trier of fact.     

Do incompatible alternatives in a testimony affect witness credibility?

The qualitative regulation of grain size allows witnesses to increase the accuracy of their reports by adding alternatives (e.g., “the robber concealed his face with a mask, with a stocking, or with a balaclava”). However, such answers may include incompatible alternatives which may make police officers and juries distrust witnesses. In four preregistered experiments, we tested the effect of information with incompatible alternatives on witness credibility. In Experiments 1a, 1b, and 1c, we presented two short testimonies, one with incompatible alternatives and another without and credibility was lower with incompatible alternatives. In Experiment 2, we told participants that witnesses could report several alternatives and the effect was reduced. We explain the effect of incompatible alternatives on credibility from participants' inferences that a witness producing an answer with incompatible alternatives is not confident in their memory and a failure to fully appreciate the advantages of adding alternatives.     

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.     

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.     

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.