Eyewitnesses are not immune to cultural influences
Image by Rita Sus
By Nkansah Anakwah
Laurent Gbagbo, a former president of Cote Divoire was charged at the International Criminal Court for war crimes and crimes against humanity. He was alleged to have played a role in the 2010 – 2011 post-electoral violence in the West African country that led to the death of over 2000 people. An investigation was opened into the alleged crimes during which several witnesses were interviewed. Witnesses interviewed in international criminal justice settings may come from a cultural background different from that of the legal or investigative professional. That means it is inevitable investigators working in such settings would obtain eyewitness accounts in a cross-cultural context. Similarly, within law enforcement settings, police detectives would obtain eyewitness accounts from witnesses in a cross-cultural context, in view of the increase in migration and globalisation. Another investigative context where cross-cultural interactions are inevitable is asylum seeker settings as asylum officials have to obtain testimonial accounts from asylum seekers who have been socialised in a different cultural context.
Witnesses and other interviewees interviewed in legal and investigative settings are not immune to their culture of socialisation. Various cultural norms may have implications for how people view, remember, and report about their experiences and how they behave in the course of cross-cultural interactions. Hence, it is entirely possible that witnesses, victims, and other interviews would reflect certain culturally determined norms when being questioned in legal and investigative contexts. That means investigative professionals obtaining eyewitness accounts in cross-cultural settings may find it challenging if insight into the culturally determined reporting norms of the witness is limited.
Different cultures have their own norms, values, customs, and practices that shape their behaviour and guide their social interactions. Depending on the culture individuals are socialised, it may have implications for their behaviour and psychological processes. The cultural dimension that has been suggested to be most influential pertaining to behaviour and psychological processes is the individualism-collectivism cultural dimension. This cultural dimension is the extent to which individuals in a society are integrated into social groups. In this model, individuals socialised in individualistic cultures view the self as loose from the social context whereas individuals socialised in collectivistic cultures view the self as more integrated with the social context. Most western cultures such as cultures in North America and Western Europe have been shown to lean towards the individualistic cultural orientation, whereas most non-western cultures such as cultures in East Asia, Latin America, Middle East, and sub-Saharan Africa have been shown to lean towards the collectivistic cultural orientation. The individualism-collectivism cultural dimension has been used extensively in research in cross-cultural psychology to describe, predict, and explain cultural differences in socialisation, values, communication, self-construal, and cognition.
The content and nature of eyewitness memory reports of witnesses socialised in different cultures may differ. For example, research shows that witnesses with a collectivistic cultural orientation provide less elaborate details than witnesses with an individualistic cultural orientation. This cultural difference in the elaborate provision of details has also been observed in research in cross-cultural deception detection showing interviewees with a collectivistic cultural orientation provide less elaborate details than interviewees with an individualistic cultural orientation.
The observed cultural differences in eyewitness memory reports have some important implications for legal and investigative settings. Investigators obtaining eyewitness accounts in cross-cultural settings must emphasise the need to report as many details as possible. Cultural expectations of completeness may vary leading to the differences in detail provision. In fact, research on autobiographical memory reports suggests that socialisation in different cultures may lead to differences in reporting models across cultures. Thus, it is extremely important that witnesses, especially those with collectivistic cultural orientation, are prompted and encouraged to elaborate further on the initial details they provide.
Effective rapport is also necessary to enhance informational outcomes during cross-cultural investigative interviews. Theoretical accounts suggest that whereas in many collectivistic cultures, there is an emphasis on hierarchy in social relationships, in many individualistic cultures, there is less emphasis on hierarchy in social relationships. This cultural difference in relating with authority figures has been argued to impede free communication and spontaneous provision of details when individuals with a collectivistic cultural background interact with an authority figure. In fact, recent research shows the authority of an investigator may impede the spontaneous provision of details for witnesses with collectivistic cultural background than witnesses with an individualistic cultural background. When effective rapport is developed in cross-cultural investigative interviews, it may minimise any perceived power imbalance and create an atmosphere that facilitates information elicitation.
The cultural differences in the elaborate provision of details also has implications for assessments of witness credibility. Determinations of witness credibility form an important part of adjudicating criminal cases. Among the criteria for determining eyewitness credibility is the amount of detail provided. However, elaborate reporting of details in an investigative context may differ across cultures. Hence, without cultural sensitivity, statements from credible witnesses may be deemed uncredible because of lack of detail.
Aside from assessment of witness credibility the cultural differences in elaborate provision of details also has implications for asylum decisions, where the credibility of asylum seekers comes to the fore. For example, the policy instructions of migration bodies of European countries emphasise level of detail as an important consideration a decision-maker should take into account when assessing the credibility of an asylum seeker. Given the cultural differences in detail provision, individuals genuinely seeking asylum from fear of persecution may be denied asylum if their account is lacking in detail. Thus, there is the need for migration bodies and asylum decision-makers to take this cultural factor into account in evaluating asylum applications.
The effectiveness of legal and investigative professionals working in cross-cultural settings rests on the ability to navigate cultural barriers. Cultural aspects of investigative interviewing must be included in the training of legal and investigative professionals obtaining eyewitness accounts in cross-cultural settings.