Eyewitness testimony in native and second languages

ABSTRACT

When communication difficulties arise in a judicial context, an interpreter is required; however, this approach could entail the omission or misinterpretation of information. Thus, to avoid such risks, it may be suitable to directly interview those who are proficient in the local language. In this study, we investigated the differences in the quality and quantity of eyewitness testimony given in one’s native and second languages, focusing on the category of information relating to an event (i.e. agent, place, object, and action). Sixty proficient Chinese–Japanese­ bilingual speakers were presented with a video clip; they were then asked to give a free eyewitness report in their native and second languages (orders were counterbalanced). The results showed that the amount of accurate information related to the object and action observed was higher in the native language than in the second language, whereas observations of place had significantly more information in the second language. The participants also reported more inaccurate information regarding the object and action category in their native language than in their second language. These results suggest that providing eyewitness testimony in one’s second language may specifically affect the details of an event; however, the orientating information is less intact.

KEYWORDS:

• Eyewitness testimony
• bilingual free report
• forensic interview
• bilingualism

Data available statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author, ZH. The data are not publicly available due to information that could compromise the privacy of research participants.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 Half of the participants completed the study through Zoom because of the restrictions put in place due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Differences in the results obtained via face-to-face vs. Zoom interview were analyzed (see Supplementary Materials).

2 The proportion of inaccurate information was not calculated and analyzed because there was no criterion for inaccurate information, defined as all that information not represented in the checklist and/or the video clip.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) under Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research on Innovative Areas ‘Law and Human Sciences’ (No. 23101010) to MN.