Uptalk and Interview Contamination

Abstract

Uptalk is defined as a rise in vocal pitch at the end of a declarative statement (Warren, 2016). Previous research regarding the effects of uptalk on interpersonal communication is inconsistent and, in some cases, contradictory. Those who speak with high levels of powerless language, such as uptalk, are evaluated as being less intelligent, convincing, and truthful (O’Barr & Atkins, 1980). Additionally, uptalk has been viewed as an effort to seek feedback or validation, as well as a sign of low confidence (Warren, 2016). However, conflicting research suggests it may simply serve as an indication of a continuing of thought (Warren & Fletcher, 2016) or a means to establish common ground between speakers in a conversation (Fletcher & Loakes, 2006). These contradictions call for further research, as there is a lack of research on these effects in forensic settings despite its relevance in the field. This study will examine the effects of uptalk on participants’ interpretations of guilt and innocence in a simulated assault case. Participants will begin by reading a short, fictional story about an alleged assault. Next, they will indicate whether they agree or disagree with statements of guilt and innocence regarding the fictional suspect. Then, they will listen to these statements either with uptalk or without and make judgements about the suspect based upon this. They will indicate the degree to which they agree with these statements using a Likert scale. Based on existing research, I expect the results of the study to show that people will be more likely to agree with statements made without uptalk than with uptalk. This study will provide information that can be beneficial in the training and educating of forensic interviewers and investigators. If made more aware of contamination risks of uptalk, they will be more apt to avoid it, leading to less false testimonies and wrongful convictions.