Earhart Becky, Brubacher Sonja P, Ali Mohammed M, Powell Martine B
Centre for Investigative Interviewing, Griffith Criminology Institute, Griffith University, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Vancouver Island University, Nanaimo, BC, Canada.
Psychiatr Psychol Law. 2024 May 19;32(4):563-576. doi: 10.1080/13218719.2024.2330484. eCollection 2025.
The present study explored the effect of ground rules when adult interviewees described personally experienced events. Participants ( = 117) in two age groups (18-40 and 60+ years) were interviewed about a meaningful event. They received no ground rules (), the 'Don't Know', 'Don't Understand' and 'Correct Me' rules as , or the rules along with questions for each. Participants were asked questions during the interview that required them to invoke a ground rule. Practicing the ground rules reduced acquiescence to problematic questions compared to the control group for all three rules. Younger and older adults showed differentiated patterns in performance across different ground rule types. The present research adds to the body of literature supporting the use of ground rules with adults by extending the generalizability of prior work with circumstances paralleling real-world interviewing contexts (i.e. when participants report about a personally experienced event after longer delays).
本研究探讨了成人受访者描述个人经历事件时基本规则的作用。两个年龄组(18 - 40岁和60岁以上)的117名参与者接受了关于一件有意义事件的访谈。他们没有得到基本规则(无),或得到了“不知道”“不理解”和“纠正我”规则,或这些规则以及针对每种规则的问题。访谈过程中向参与者提问,要求他们援引一条基本规则。与对照组相比,对于所有三条规则,运用基本规则都减少了对有问题问题的默认。年轻人和老年人在不同基本规则类型下的表现呈现出不同模式。本研究通过在与现实世界访谈情境相似的情况下(即参与者在较长延迟后报告个人经历事件时)扩展先前研究的普遍性,为支持对成人使用基本规则的文献增添了内容。