The transcripts used in this study were collected from the District Attorney's office, Mecklenburg County, Charlotte, North Carolina, with the generous permission of Peter S. Gilchrist III. The authors thank the staff of the District Attorney's office and especially John Wyatt, Assistant District Attorney, for their assistance; Roger B. Bernholtz for his help throughout this study; Kim Bullock, Cliff Hester, Molly Hunter, Sandy Malek, and Chris Stevens for coding the transcripts; and Arthur G. Miller, Leonard C. Rorer, Garold L. Stasser, and John Thibaut for reading and commenting on a draft of this article. This article is based on the first author's undergraduate honors thesis, Department of Psychology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Courtroom Interrogation of Rape Victims: Verbal Response Mode Use by Attorneys and Witnesses During Direct Examination vs. Cross-Examination1
Version of Record online: 1 AUG 2006
Journal of Applied Social Psychology
Volume 13, Issue 1, pages 78–87, February 1983
How to Cite
McGaughey, K. J. and Stiles, W. B. (1983), Courtroom Interrogation of Rape Victims: Verbal Response Mode Use by Attorneys and Witnesses During Direct Examination vs. Cross-Examination. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 13: 78–87. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1983.tb00888.x
- Issue online: 1 AUG 2006
- Version of Record online: 1 AUG 2006
The verbal behavior of attorneys and witnesses (rape victims) in direct and cross-examinations was coded according to a taxonomy of verbal response modes (VRMs). Significant differences were found between the verbal behavior of attorneys and witnesses on direct and cross-examination. The differences are those that would be expected on the basis of the advice given by legal authors concerning the techniques that should be used in the two types of interrogation. The VRMs reflect the different techniques that attorneys use in their efforts to influence juries' impressions of witnesses' credibility.