IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/sagope/v10y2020i1p2158244019899053.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Directive Leading Questions and Preparation Technique Effects on Witness Accuracy

Author

Listed:
  • Georgina Gous
  • Jacqueline M. Wheatcroft

Abstract

The use of leading questions during cross-examination can undermine the accuracy and completeness of evidence presented in court. Furthermore, increasing numbers of general witnesses are arriving in court unprepared for the experience. In this study, 60 mock witnesses from England and Wales were allocated to one of the three preparation conditions: (a) those who received no familiarization with the cross-examination process, (b) those who received a guidance booklet on cross-examination procedures, and (c) those who underwent an alternative rapport-building protocol. The participants observed a hit-and-run scenario video clip before being cross-examined with either (a) non-directive leading questions or (b) directive leading questions. The results showed that directive leading questioning styles were most detrimental to witness accuracy. Neither familiarization with the types of questions typically employed during cross-examination nor the rapport-building protocol were found to be effective as a preparation strategy to increase accurate responses compared against a control group. Consideration of the impact of directive leading question styles on all witnesses in court seems necessary.

Suggested Citation

  • Georgina Gous & Jacqueline M. Wheatcroft, 2020. "Directive Leading Questions and Preparation Technique Effects on Witness Accuracy," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(1), pages 21582440198, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:10:y:2020:i:1:p:2158244019899053
    DOI: 10.1177/2158244019899053
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2158244019899053
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/2158244019899053?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sah, Sunita & Moore, Don A. & MacCoun, Robert J., 2013. "Cheap talk and credibility: The consequences of confidence and accuracy on advisor credibility and persuasiveness," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 121(2), pages 246-255.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hoffmann, Robert & Chesney, Thomas & Chuah, Swee-Hoon & Kock, Florian & Larner, Jeremy, 2020. "Demonstrability, difficulty and persuasion: An experimental study of advice taking," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    2. Chen Li & Ning Liu, 2021. "What to tell? Wise communication and wise crowd," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 90(2), pages 279-299, March.
    3. Rastislav Rehak, 2022. "Sequential Sampling Beyond Decisions? A Normative Model of Decision Confidence," CERGE-EI Working Papers wp739, The Center for Economic Research and Graduate Education - Economics Institute, Prague.
    4. Haran, Uriel & Mazar, Asaf & Hurwitz, Mordechai & Moran, Simone, 2022. "Confidently at your service: Advisors alter their stated confidence to be helpful," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    5. repec:cup:judgdm:v:12:y:2017:i:1:p:29-41 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Mesbah, Neda & Tauchert, Christoph & Buxmann, Peter, 2021. "Whose Advice Counts More – Man or Machine? An Experimental Investigation of AI-based Advice Utilization," Publications of Darmstadt Technical University, Institute for Business Studies (BWL) 124796, Darmstadt Technical University, Department of Business Administration, Economics and Law, Institute for Business Studies (BWL).
    7. Laurent Vilanova & Nadège Marchand & Walid Hichri, 2015. "Financing and advising with (over)confident entrepreneurs: an experimental investigation," Working Papers halshs-01154514, HAL.
    8. Bolger, Fergus & Rowe, Gene & Belton, Ian & Crawford, Megan M & Hamlin, Iain & Sissons, Aileen & Taylor Browne Lūka, Courtney & Vasilichi, Alexandrina & Wright, George, 2020. "The Simulated Group Response Paradigm: A new approach to the study of opinion change in Delphi and other structured-group techniques," OSF Preprints 4ufzg, Center for Open Science.
    9. Petropoulos, Fotios & Apiletti, Daniele & Assimakopoulos, Vassilios & Babai, Mohamed Zied & Barrow, Devon K. & Ben Taieb, Souhaib & Bergmeir, Christoph & Bessa, Ricardo J. & Bijak, Jakub & Boylan, Joh, 2022. "Forecasting: theory and practice," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 705-871.
      • Fotios Petropoulos & Daniele Apiletti & Vassilios Assimakopoulos & Mohamed Zied Babai & Devon K. Barrow & Souhaib Ben Taieb & Christoph Bergmeir & Ricardo J. Bessa & Jakub Bijak & John E. Boylan & Jet, 2020. "Forecasting: theory and practice," Papers 2012.03854, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2022.
    10. Kausel, Edgar E. & Culbertson, Satoris S. & Madrid, Hector P., 2016. "Overconfidence in personnel selection: When and why unstructured interview information can hurt hiring decisions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 27-44.
    11. Sah, Sunita & Loewenstein, George, 2015. "Conflicted advice and second opinions: Benefits, but unintended consequences," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 89-107.
    12. Leiby, Justin, 2018. "The role of consultants and management prestige in management control system adoption," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 1-13.
    13. Sah, Sunita, 2019. "Understanding the (perverse) effects of disclosing conflicts of interest: A direct replication study," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 75(PA).
    14. Kennedy, Jessica A. & Anderson, Cameron & Moore, Don A., 2013. "When overconfidence is revealed to others: Testing the status-enhancement theory of overconfidence," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 122(2), pages 266-279.
    15. Aghazadeh, Sanaz & Joe, Jennifer R., 2022. "Auditors' response to management confidence and misstatement risk," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    16. Eyal Carmel & Dana Carmel & David Leiser & Avia Spivak, 2015. "Facing a Biased Adviser While Choosing a Retirement Plan: The Impact of Financial Literacy and Fair Disclosure," Journal of Consumer Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(3), pages 576-595, November.
    17. Julia P. Prims & Don A. Moore, 2017. "Overconfidence over the lifespan," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 12(1), pages 29-41, January.
    18. Jack B. Soll & Asa B. Palley & Christina A. Rader, 2022. "The Bad Thing About Good Advice: Understanding When and How Advice Exacerbates Overconfidence," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(4), pages 2949-2969, April.
    19. Aghazadeh, Sanaz & Hoang, Kris, 2020. "How does audit firm emphasis on client relationship quality influence auditors’ inferences about and responses to potential persuasion in client communications?," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    20. Blunden, Hayley & Logg, Jennifer M. & Brooks, Alison Wood & John, Leslie K. & Gino, Francesca, 2019. "Seeker beware: The interpersonal costs of ignoring advice," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 83-100.
    21. Jeremy Burke & Angela A. Hung & Jack Clift & Steven Garber & Joanne K. Yoong, 2015. "Impacts of Conflicts of Interest in the Financial Services Industry," Working Papers WR-1076, RAND Corporation.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:10:y:2020:i:1:p:2158244019899053. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.