This study assessed the impact of some complex question forms frequently used by attorneys who examine and cross-examine witnesses in the courtroom. Fifteen males and 15 females from each of four student populations (kindergarten, fourth grade, ninth grade, and college) viewed a videotaped incident and then responded to questions about the incident. Half the questions were asked in "lawyerese" (i.e., using complex question forms); the remaining half asked for the same information using simply phrased question forms of the same length. Lawyerese confused children, adolescents, and young adults alike. Questions that included multiple parts with mutually exclusive responses were the most difficult to answer; those that included negatives, double negatives, or difficult vocabulary also posed significant problems. Results suggest that complex question forms impede truth-seeking and should be prohibited in court.Lawyers are students of language by profession, and they exercise their power in court by manipulating the thoughts and opinions of others through the skillful use of language (Philbrick, cited in O'Barr, 1982). As one forensic linguist noted, "The most powerful weapon an attorney has in the war of words he wages with the witness is manipulation of question form, and it is a tool frequently referred to in articles and manuals on deposition and trial practice" (Walker, 1987, p. 64).

We compared 42 transcripts of sexual abuse interviews conducted by child protective services personnel in one state to practices currently recommended by researchers on children's testimony. Although the majority of the interviewers attempted to establish rapport, they rarely conducted practice interviews regarding past, neutral events, and rarely informed children that “I don't know,”“I don't understand,” and “I don't remember” are acceptable answers to questions. Further, the majority of the interviewers failed to begin their abuse-related questioning with general, open-ended questions, instead relying primarily on specific, yes/no questions throughout the interview. Finally, interviewers frequently introduced new material not previously disclosed by the children and failed to clarify the sources of new information.

This article describes an active-learning approach to teaching an undergraduate psychology and law course specifically designed to improve critical-thinking skills. After reviewing the concepts of active learning and critical thinking, we describe the course and present data and observations regarding its success. Finally, we discuss strategies for handling problems that may arise when teaching a psychology and law course using this approach.

The primary objective of the present study was to assess the stability and generality of the Level I: Life Styles Inventory's factor structure. The importance of the objective emerged from a discrepancy between the conceptual model and the inventory's derived factor structure. This self-report inventory was constructed to measure 12 thinking patterns or life styles and is used by business managers for organizational and individual development. Analysis of the data from 116 college students yielded a three-factor solution that was similar in communalities, percent variance accounted for, and factor pattern coefficients to those from the one previous study. The factors were People/Security, Satisfaction, and Task/Security. Those similarities existed despite differences between the studies in subjects, method of extraction, and sample size. Evidence supported a conclusion for the factor invariance and generality of the inventory.

No abstract