Interrogation questions to native and non-native eyewitnesses: The role of witness credibility
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 interrog...
| Authors: | ; ; ; |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
2025
|
| In: |
Legal and criminological psychology
Year: 2025, Volume: 30, Issue: 2, Pages: 231-243 |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (kostenfrei) Volltext (kostenfrei) |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Keywords: |
| Summary: | 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. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2044-8333 |
| DOI: | 10.1111/lcrp.12301 |
