Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39336052›Full record

ArticleBehavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland)2024

'

Megan Hermolle, Alexandra Kent, Abigail J Locke, Samantha J Andrews

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Megan HermolleSchool of Psychology, Keele University, Staffordshire ST5 5BG, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2483-9540
Alexandra KentSchool of Psychology, Keele University, Staffordshire ST5 5BG, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0350-8769
Abigail J LockeSchool of Psychology, Keele University, Staffordshire ST5 5BG, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2759-0579
Samantha J AndrewsSchool of Psychology, Keele University, Staffordshire ST5 5BG, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent statistics reveal alarming flaws in the Criminal Justice System's (CJS) handling of rape cases, undermining the pursuit of justice for complainants seeking legal redress. This paper takes a novel approach to explore police rape stereotype use in interviews with rape complainants, utilising critical discourse analysis and conversation analysis and discursive psychology to understand and critique the balance of power within an interview and how this might impact attrition and prosecution decisions. Ten police interviews with rape complainants were analysed with several suspect discursive constructions present throughout, including the interviewer constructing the suspect as misunderstanding, the complainant as miscommunicating non-consent, or agentless and passive talk. A significant and original finding was the way constructions interacted with the spectrum of stranger-to-partner rapes. In stranger rape cases, passive language often obscures the suspect and emphasises the complainant's behaviour. Acquaintance rapes frequently involved misunderstandings centred on visible distress and mixed signals. Partner rapes highlighted issues around consent and coercion, with officers often ignorant of coercive control and domestic abuse. These findings align with Operation Bluestone Soteria (OSB); thus, the recommendations align with those made by OSB's Pillar One.

Indexed as

investigative interviewingpolicingraperape myths

Identifiers

PMID39336052
PMCPMC11429250

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.