The Effects of Registered Intermediaries on Youths' Perceived Credibility

This research seeks to examine how interjections from a registered intermediary (RI) during cross-examination impact complainant and accused youths perceived credibility across two experiments. In Experiment 1, we will examine how improvements to question clarity through RI interjections during a cross-examination impacts complainant and accused youths perceived credibility. In Experiment 2, we will examine how improvements to the clarity of the youth’s responses during a cross-examination impacts their perceived credibility. The experience of being cross-examined can be particularly difficult for some witnesses and victims; therefore, many countries offer testimonial supports to witnesses and victims. Those who qualify for these supports often referred to as vulnerable witnesses, and the types of supports they are given, differ across countries (Bill C-2, 2005). In Canada, vulnerable witnesses are any complainant under 18 or any person with a mental and/or physical disability (Bill C-2, 2005). Accused persons, even those under 18, are not specifically mentioned in the current legislation regarding youths or testimonial supports (Bill C-2, 2005; YCJA, 2002). The current legislation governing accused youths is the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) (YCJA Summary, 2017). The focus of the YCJA relates to before and after the court proceedings, such as the arrest and questioning of youths or sentencing and detention restrictions and alternatives, while the actual court proceedings are neglected (YCJA, 2002). A new testimonial support that is being offered limitedly in Canada, is a Registered Intermediary (RI) (Birenbaum & Collier, 2017). The role of an RI is to facilitate the communication between a vulnerable witness and members of the criminal justice system (Birenbaum & Collier, 2017). Although there is a body of research looking at how testimonial supports effect perceptions of witnesses, particularly how it effects how credible they are perceived to be, similar research on the effects of RIs is sparse. According to the two-factor theory perceived credibility can be evaluated based on two components: cognitive competence and honesty (Ross et al., 2003). The weighting of these two factors may depend on characteristics associated with the case and the witnesses involved. For instance, younger children are generally perceived as more honest and less cognitively competent compared to older children and adults (Bala et al., 2005; Nightingale, 1993). Another factor that can influence one’s perceived credibility, is the use of testimonial supports. Closed-circuit television, a commonly researched and offered support, may negatively impact perceptions of child witnesses (Goodman et al., 1998; Landström et al., 2007). Research on the perceived credibility of youths with testimonial supports is sparse, particularly with accused youths. The potential impact of RIs on perceived credibility has not been widely researched. One study examining the relationship between RIs and perceived credibility found the presence of an RI positively impacted perceptions of child complainants (Collins et al., 2017). To date, studies have examined the impact of the mere presence of an RI in the courtroom, the impact of their interjections during a witness’s questioning, or both (Krahenbuhl, 2019). The present study seeks to further explore the effects of RI interjections. When RIs interject, it is often to re-phrase confusing questions that are leading, contain complex language, or are multipart questions. Karla and Heath (1997) examined if leading vs. non-leading questions and child-defendant relationship (known or unknown) influenced mock-juror’ perceptions of a child witness. Child witnesses were perceived as more credible and honest when non-leading questions were asked in the transcript (Karla & Heath, 1997). It seems child complainants are perceived as more credible when they are asked less leading questions, meaning if an RI interjects to clarify these types of questions, we would expect it to positively impact perceptions of complainant’s credibility. Additionally, when looking at the effects of RI interjections, the response of the person being questioned may also be altered due to questions being more clearly stated. Erikson et al. (1978) examined how differences in a complainant’s response influenced perceptions of credibility. Complainants whose speech contained hesitation forms (“uh” “um”), among other linguistic features, were perceived as less credible compared to complainants that did not have hesitation forms and the other linguistic features in their speech (Erikson et al., 1978). Interestingly, Boccaccini et al. (2005) examined how improvements to an accused person’s response influenced their perceived credibility across two studies. In the first study, participants acted as mock accused persons and described a fictitious crime. The participants either received pre-testimony training aimed to improve their delivery skills or did not receive training. One of the factors addressed in the training was removing hesitations (um’s and uh’s) from their testimonies. In the second study, Boccaccini et al. (2005) had eight real public defender clients testify, once before and again after they received the same testimony training as in study one. Trained evaluators then viewed and rated the testimonies. Participants in both studies who were trained, showed improvements from their first testimony to their second, for example, they were able to reduce the number of hesitations in their speech. This led to increases in credibility for trained accused persons. Additionally, the accused who received training were perceived as less likely to be guilty compared to the accused who were not trained. These findings offer insight into how improvements to an accused person’s speech style could influence their perceived credibility. Meaning it is likely that an RI interjection that decreases hesitations in responses will improve the perceived credibility of an accused. The Current Research: In Experiment 1, we will examine whether clarifying questions through RI interjections influences ratings of the complainant and accused youth’s credibility. Participants will be asked to read a courtroom transcript (8 pages long), of a complainant and an accused youth involved in an alleged sexual assault case. The youths either testify with the assistance of RI who clarifies 12 confusing questions or without the assistance of RI and the same 12 questions are asked, but not clarified. Example from the complainant transcript with RI: A So how could you recognize the voice you heard that night and tell that the voice you heard was the defendant who is present here today? RI Could you please rephrase that question in a simpler way. A How could you tell the voice was the defendants? Y Well um, I could just tell it was him Example from the complainant transcript without an RI: A So how could you recognize the voice you heard that night and tell that the voice you heard was the defendant who is present here today? Y Well um, I could just tell it was him After they have read the transcript, participants will be asked to answer a 31-item questionnaire measuring the complainant and accused perceived credibility. In Experiment 2, we will examine whether clarifying the complainant and the accused youth’s responses through RI interjections influences perceptions of their credibility. Participants will be asked to read the same courtroom transcript used in Experiment 1, but in this experiment, the youth’s responses to the 12 confusing questions will also be clarified (by removing hesitations, um’s and uh’s) or without the assistance of an RI where the youth’s responses will be clarified (contains hesitations, um’s and uh’s). After reading the transcript, participants will answer the same questionnaire used in Experiment 1.

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.