{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017415215398716773, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00916590284142988, 'mean_word_length': 5.699386503067485, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The utility of ground rule instructions with younger and older adult witnesses

This study examined the effectiveness of ground rules—simple instructions outlining the communication expectations of an investigative interview—with 73 younger (age 18–40) and 57 older (age 60+) adults. Participants watched a film depicting an implied sexual assault and were interviewed after a brief delay. One third received no ground rules, one third received ground rules as statements, and one third received the statements along with practice examples. The interview contained questions that required participants to apply one of the rules. Those who received ground rules were asked their perceptions of the rules. Results demonstrated that practicing ground rules improved response quality to problematic recognition questions, younger adults showed more variability in responses to different ground rules than older adults, and most participants found ground rule instructions useful in investigative interviews. Results provide support for the use of ground rules in interviews with adult witnesses.