A Theory of Ethics to Guide Investigative Interviewing Research

Author:

Neequaye David A.

Abstract

This article examines ethical considerations relevant to the formulation of psychological investigative interviewing techniques or methods. Psychology researchers are now devoting much attention to improving the efficacy of eliciting information in investigative interviews. Stakeholders agree that interviewing methods must be ethical. However, there is a less concerted effort at systematically delineating ethical considerations to guide the creation of interviewing methods derived from scientific psychological principles. The disclosures interviewees make may put them at considerable risk, and it is not always possible to determine beforehand whether placing interviewees under such risks is warranted. Thus, I argue that research psychologists aiming to contribute ethical methods in this context should ensure that those methods abide by a standard that actively protects interviewees against unjustified risks. Interviewing techniques should provide interviewees, particularly vulnerable ones, with enough agency to freely determine what to disclose. Researchers should explicitly indicate the boundary conditions of a method if it cannot achieve this standard. Journal editors and reviewers should request such discussions. The suggested standard tasks research psychologists to be circumspect about recommending psychological techniques without fully addressing the ethical boundaries of those methods in their publications. I explain the proposed ethical standard’s necessity and discuss how it can be applied.

Publisher

Linnaeus University

Subject

General Environmental Science

Reference57 articles.

1. Revenge versus rapport: Interrogation, terrorism, and torture;Alison;American Psychologist,2017

2. Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct;Psychological Association.;American Psychologist 57(12) 1060- 1073 https / / doi org / http / / dx doi org,2002

3. Aronson, J. K. (2006). Balanced prescribing. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 62(6), 629- 632. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2125. 2006.02825.x

4. Bandes, S. A. (2009). Protecting the innocent as the primary value of the criminal justice system book review. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 7(1), 413-438. Retrieved October 11, 2020, from https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein. journals/osjcl7&i=417

5. Bayles, M. E. (2012). Procedural justice: Allocating to individuals. Springer Science & Business Media.

Cited by 1 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

1. Availability of Facilities Supports Education Across All School Levels: Case Study of SDN 1 Sabaru;Journal of Instructional and Development Researches;2023-06-28

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3