Examining the Effect of Interviewee Behaviour in Assessing Sexual Assault Victim Credibility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sexual assault victims face doubts of their credibility when disclosing their experiences. Because of the traumatic nature of the assault, victims behave and express their emotions uniquely, which may impact their perceived credibility. The current study examined how a victim’s behaviour impacts their credibility during an investigative interview. Participants (N = 240) read one of six transcripts, depicting the investigative interview of a fictional sexual assault case. The victim (a male or female) displayed one of three behaviours (typical: crying; atypical: laughing; or neutral). After reading the interview transcript, participants assessed the victim’s credibility using the Witness Credibility Scale. Findings showed that women were perceived to be more credible than men, regardless of emotional expression (p = .032, BF10 = 1.385). There were no differences in the credibility of victims as a function of interviewee behaviors (p = .593, BF10= 0.071).
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 | 0.013 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".