Lawyers rapport building practices with child witnesses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Existing literature on rapport building in forensic interviews with children has primarily focused on police or social workers (Collins et al., 2002); overlooking the lawyer-child relationship. OBJECTIVE: The present study was a novel exploration of the rapport building process between lawyers and child witnesses during the interview stage of a criminal proceeding. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: = 41.69, SD = 11.19; 51 % female-identifying) with experience questioning child witnesses (i.e., under 18 years old) were surveyed on their rapport building with child witnesses. METHODS: A self-report survey was used to assess how lawyers conceptualize and engage in rapport building with child witnesses. RESULTS: Lawyers were found to perceive rapport building as an important element when working with child witnesses; however, the lawyers' self-reported rapport building techniques overlooked several important elements of rapport building identified in forensic interviewing literature. Overall, the role of the lawyer (i.e., prosecution or defence), but rarely gender, influenced their self-reported rapport building methods. Prosecution lawyers tended to report behaviors that were more aligned with creating an interpersonal connection during the rapport building phase with the child, such as creating an environment where the child feels safe and comfortable. CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide insight into how lawyers conceptualize and engage in rapport building with child witnesses. Overall, the lawyers perceived rapport building as an important element with child witnesses, but only some of the techniques mentioned are considered best practices to build rapport with children.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".