Do we need to rethink guidance on repeated interviews?

David J. La Rooy, Carmit Katz, Lindsay C. Malloy, Michael E. Lamb

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

  • 33 Citations

Abstract

Within the legal system, children are frequently interviewed about their experiences more than once, with different information elicited in different interviews. The presumed positive and negative effects of multiple interviewing have generated debate and controversy within the legal system and among researchers. Some commentators emphasise that repeated interviews foster inaccurate recall and are inherently suggestive, whereas others emphasise the benefits of allowing witnesses more than one opportunity to recall information. In this article we briefly review the literature on repeated interviewing before presenting a series of cases highlighting what happens when children are interviewed more than once for various reasons. We conclude that, when interviewers follow internationally recognised best-practice guidelines emphasising open-questions and free memory recall, alleged victims of abuse should be interviewed more than once to ensure that more complete accounts are obtained. Implications for current legal guidelines concerning repeated interviewing are discussed.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)373-392
Number of pages20
JournalPsychology, Public Policy and Law
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 2010

Fingerprint

interview
legal system
child
information
witness
best practice
abuse
victim
memory
scientist
effect

Cite this

La Rooy, D. J., Katz, C., Malloy, L. C., & Lamb, M. E. (2010). Do we need to rethink guidance on repeated interviews? Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 373-392. DOI: 10.1037/a0019909

La Rooy, David J.; Katz, Carmit; Malloy, Lindsay C.; Lamb, Michael E. / Do we need to rethink guidance on repeated interviews?

In: Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 11.2010, p. 373-392.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{ffb581b724cb4841a4ff8f04298e33e5,
title = "Do we need to rethink guidance on repeated interviews?",
abstract = "Within the legal system, children are frequently interviewed about their experiences more than once, with different information elicited in different interviews. The presumed positive and negative effects of multiple interviewing have generated debate and controversy within the legal system and among researchers. Some commentators emphasise that repeated interviews foster inaccurate recall and are inherently suggestive, whereas others emphasise the benefits of allowing witnesses more than one opportunity to recall information. In this article we briefly review the literature on repeated interviewing before presenting a series of cases highlighting what happens when children are interviewed more than once for various reasons. We conclude that, when interviewers follow internationally recognised best-practice guidelines emphasising open-questions and free memory recall, alleged victims of abuse should be interviewed more than once to ensure that more complete accounts are obtained. Implications for current legal guidelines concerning repeated interviewing are discussed.",
author = "{La Rooy}, {David J.} and Carmit Katz and Malloy, {Lindsay C.} and Lamb, {Michael E.}",
year = "2010",
month = "11",
doi = "10.1037/a0019909",
pages = "373--392",
journal = "Psychology, Public Policy and Law",
issn = "1076-8971",

}

La Rooy, DJ, Katz, C, Malloy, LC & Lamb, ME 2010, 'Do we need to rethink guidance on repeated interviews?' Psychology, Public Policy and Law, pp. 373-392. DOI: 10.1037/a0019909

Do we need to rethink guidance on repeated interviews? / La Rooy, David J.; Katz, Carmit; Malloy, Lindsay C.; Lamb, Michael E.

In: Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 11.2010, p. 373-392.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Do we need to rethink guidance on repeated interviews?

AU - La Rooy,David J.

AU - Katz,Carmit

AU - Malloy,Lindsay C.

AU - Lamb,Michael E.

PY - 2010/11

Y1 - 2010/11

N2 - Within the legal system, children are frequently interviewed about their experiences more than once, with different information elicited in different interviews. The presumed positive and negative effects of multiple interviewing have generated debate and controversy within the legal system and among researchers. Some commentators emphasise that repeated interviews foster inaccurate recall and are inherently suggestive, whereas others emphasise the benefits of allowing witnesses more than one opportunity to recall information. In this article we briefly review the literature on repeated interviewing before presenting a series of cases highlighting what happens when children are interviewed more than once for various reasons. We conclude that, when interviewers follow internationally recognised best-practice guidelines emphasising open-questions and free memory recall, alleged victims of abuse should be interviewed more than once to ensure that more complete accounts are obtained. Implications for current legal guidelines concerning repeated interviewing are discussed.

AB - Within the legal system, children are frequently interviewed about their experiences more than once, with different information elicited in different interviews. The presumed positive and negative effects of multiple interviewing have generated debate and controversy within the legal system and among researchers. Some commentators emphasise that repeated interviews foster inaccurate recall and are inherently suggestive, whereas others emphasise the benefits of allowing witnesses more than one opportunity to recall information. In this article we briefly review the literature on repeated interviewing before presenting a series of cases highlighting what happens when children are interviewed more than once for various reasons. We conclude that, when interviewers follow internationally recognised best-practice guidelines emphasising open-questions and free memory recall, alleged victims of abuse should be interviewed more than once to ensure that more complete accounts are obtained. Implications for current legal guidelines concerning repeated interviewing are discussed.

U2 - 10.1037/a0019909

DO - 10.1037/a0019909

M3 - Article

SP - 373

EP - 392

JO - Psychology, Public Policy and Law

T2 - Psychology, Public Policy and Law

JF - Psychology, Public Policy and Law

SN - 1076-8971

ER -

La Rooy DJ, Katz C, Malloy LC, Lamb ME. Do we need to rethink guidance on repeated interviews? Psychology, Public Policy and Law. 2010 Nov;373-392. Available from, DOI: 10.1037/a0019909