Language and eyewitness suggestibility

Abstract

During forensic interviews, eyewitnesses are to retrieve correct information from memory. Cognitive load should be high, leading to risks of giving in to suggestive questions and difficulties in memory retrieval generally. Testifying in a non‐native vs. native language may require even more cognitive effort due to the need to inhibit the interference of the native language. Such witnesses may also be more motivated to appear credible because they often belong to ethnic outgroups relative to forensic professionals, risking more scepticism. In this study, Swedish participants (N = 51) reported their memory of a simulated crime event either in English (non‐native language) or in Swedish (native language) and were tested for suggestibility and accuracy. Results showed that English‐speaking witnesses yielded to more suggestive questions, perceived themselves as less credible but were equally accurate. Results suggest that testifying in a non‐native language is taxing cognitive resources, in turn increasing suggestibility and suboptimal memory search.

When the eyewitness to a crime is an English language learner: Identifying and resolving troubles in understanding in interviews

“…(2012) found that a greater cognitive load (not language‐related) increased suggestibility in a non‐forensic context. In another study, participants freely recalled a mock crime either in their native language (Swedish) or in their second language (English; Alm et al., 2019). Afterward, they completed a suggestibility measure that included leading questions and were asked how effortful the task was.…”

“…Afterward, they completed a suggestibility measure that included leading questions and were asked how effortful the task was. Participants who recalled in their second language were more suggestible and perceived their cognitive effort to be higher than those who recalled the crime in their first language (Alm et al., 2019), suggesting that recalling a crime in their second language may have had a negative impact on memory, in part because of their increased cognitive load.…”

“…Trinch and Berk-Seligson (2002) found that bilingual Latina survivors of domestic violence sought to tell the story of their abuse during the protective order application process, while interviewers aimed to elicit a report and shaped the submitted application to meet their own goals. L2 speakers also may be less accurate when it comes to certain memory tasks because of the increased cognitive load of speaking in a second language (Service et al, 2002), exacerbated by attempting to recall an event while simultaneously inhibiting their first language (Abutalebi, 2008;Alm et al, 2019). For example, when questioned in a mock border interview, L2 participants in Akehurst et al (2018) reported feeling more nervous and cognitively strained compared with L1 participants.…”

“…Otgaar et al (2012) found that a greater cognitive load (not language-related) increased suggestibility in a non-forensic context. In another study, participants freely recalled a mock crime either in their native language (Swedish) or in their second language (English; Alm et al, 2019).…”

Interviewing witnesses in a second language: A comparison of interpreter‐assisted, unaided, and self‐administered interviews

“…The most pertinent of which is reduced language ability, which makes reporting more difficult (Abutalebi, 2008). Consequently, compared with those providing statements in their first language, research shows that people recalling events in their second language provide shorter statements (Ewens et al, 2017; Ewens, Vrij, Leal, Mann, Jo, & Fisher, 2016; Ewens, Vrij, Leal, Mann, Jo, Shaboltas, et al, 2016), though not necessarily less accurate ones (Alm et al, 2019). Other research suggests that people providing statements in their second language are more nervous (Akehurst et al, 2018), suggestible (Alm et al, 2019) and appear as less credible (Frumkin, 2007; Lindholm, 2008) than those providing statements in their first language.…”