Campbell, I. L., Rivard, J., & Compo, N. S.2017-11-022017-11-022016Campbell, I. L., Rivard, J., & Compo, N. S. (2016). Mock Jurors’ Perception of Blind vs. Non-blind Interviewing: The Role of Recantation. Journal of Psychological Inquiry, 21(2), 15-22.https://blogs.uoregon.edu/intldept/files/2016/11/JPI-Vol-21-2-ian-campbell-23gn1lr.pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/11212/3586—Decades of cognitive psychology research suggest interviewer expectations may influence a witness’s statement. In cases of suspected child sexual abuse, a witness’s statement is oftentimes the only piece of evidence. As such, how the child witness was interviewed becomes of central importance during court proceedings. The present study examined whether mock jurors evaluate differently the evidentiary value of a child witness statement as a function of the interviewer’s preconceived notion about the case. The study also investigated the role of recantation in jurors’ perception of the evidence, resulting in a 2 (pre-informed interviewer vs. not) X 2 (child recanted vs. not) design. Undergraduate students (N= 442) were presented with 2-page trial summary varying interviewer pre-interview information and child recantation. They then read Florida jury instructions before being asked to render a verdict in the case, followed by additional questions and a demographic questionnaire. It was predicted mock jurors would be sensitive to pre-informed interviewing, if the witness recanted resulting in fewer guilty verdicts and attribute a lower credibility rating to the witness’s statement in the recantation condition only. Results indicated mock jurors were sensitive to blind interviewing and recantation in their assessment of the case, which supports the notion of expectancy effects.enblind interviewforensic interviewrecantationjuror decision-makingresearchArticle