Forensic Dynamics in the Interviewing Process Term Paper

Excerpt from Term Paper :

Alter the Forensic Dynamics during an Interviewing Process

In this paper, we reveal how professional's attitudes, views, and knowledge do not necessarily match forensic research findings. Witness issues will then be discussed concerning research community. The study identifies some of the key factors that can alter or improve forensic dynamics during the interviewing process. This study focuses primarily on forensic dynamics relating to the interviewing young children and the associated challenges.

Expert knowledge and attitudes

It has been proven that professionals and social researchers (biased) towards information confirming their initial beliefs by refuting established opinions. Once established, beliefs and impressions challenged to contrary proof. Thus, belief systems and generalization can create a confirmation prejudice that may result in faulty understanding and wrong presentation, adversely affecting important decisions. Regarding child victimization situations, such prejudice may result in dramatic repercussions presenting a serious risk to a person's legal rights or presenting a serious risk to a child's security (Bull, Valentine & Williamson, 2009).

Consider a professional who is requested to assess a kid in a custody case that includes accusations of child sex-related abuse. If the professional has a preconditioned idea that children hardly ever if ever lie about child sex-related abuse, the professional might ask suggestive questions or take uncertain claims or controversial behavioral signs by the kid to confirm the expert's own prejudice and thus determine that the kid is indeed a victim of sexual abuse. This could cause for the mother or father not only to loss of legal care of the kid but also to loss of reputation and freedom, because of criminal prosecution. In contrast, if the professional has a prejudice that most such situations include false accusations, he/she might discount true reports of abuse or not sufficiently sensor. This will result in the wrong determination that the kid is safe with the mother or father when, in reality, the kid is not. Therefore, the professional must try to remain as fairly neutral, impartial, and precise as possible. As mentioned next, studies suggest that experts' knowledge is not always accurate or impartial, or at least, not always reliable with scientific research.

Experts' knowledge and beliefs

Many people like to think that expert's attitude and knowledge are a reflection of scientific understanding that is based on empirical studies. However, skills are not always advised by science. Research has proven that professionals, such as legal professionals and psychologists, are not experienced or qualified than others in properly decoding verbal claims and non-verbal behavior. However, professionals are mostly confident in their assessments than are others. When individuals show confidence that their answers are appropriate, their reactions are more likely to be recognized as appropriate, and in a legal perspective this may be decisive. I the U.S., experts tend to become dichotomized as they often serve as the prosecution or defense experts. This triggers the risk of encouraging dichotomized perceptions of children's capabilities (Bull, Valentine & Williamson, 2009).

Many medical professionals also seem to feel favorably about the use of drawings, play sessions, and dolls as potential resources for forensic work, regardless of cautions from scientists about such methods. Agreement about the stability of different evaluation techniques is still an issue among professionals themselves. In the Oberlander research, 87% of the participants considered that play sessions were useful. Ninety percent responded that drawings were useful while 46% indicated that baby dolls were useful (Bull, Valentine & Williamson, 2009). Other reviews show that the most questionable techniques are not frequently used in the U. S although relatively new rewards in the community have called for prop-aided interviews as a new evidence collecting strategy. When questions and interventions are presented as verbal interviews…

Sources Used in Document:


Bull, R., Valentine, T., & Williamson, T. (2009). Handbook of psychology of investigative interviewing: Current developments and future directions. Chichester, UK: Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Cite This Term Paper:

"Forensic Dynamics In The Interviewing Process" (2014, April 03) Retrieved July 7, 2020, from

"Forensic Dynamics In The Interviewing Process" 03 April 2014. Web.7 July. 2020. <>

"Forensic Dynamics In The Interviewing Process", 03 April 2014, Accessed.7 July. 2020,