repeated interviewing of witnesses and suspects
DESCRIPTION
Repeated interviewing of witnesses and suspects. Ronald Fisher Florida International University (Miami, U.S.A.) iIIRG (Dundee, Scotlant) June 1, 2011. Accuracy rate per response category (Gilbert & Fisher). Time 1 Time 2 Consistent .95 .95 Forgotten .93 -- - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Repeated interviewing of witnesses and suspects](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062314/56813b00550346895da39c93/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Repeated interviewing of witnesses and suspects
Ronald FisherFlorida International University (Miami, U.S.A.)
iIIRG(Dundee, Scotlant)
June 1, 2011
![Page 2: Repeated interviewing of witnesses and suspects](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062314/56813b00550346895da39c93/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Accuracy rate per response category (Gilbert & Fisher)
Time 1 Time 2
Consistent .95 .95
Forgotten .93 --
Reminiscent -- .87
Contradictory .62 .35
![Page 3: Repeated interviewing of witnesses and suspects](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062314/56813b00550346895da39c93/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Legal Challenges: Judge’s instructions
Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases,
1987,# 204, sub-para 8:…
“Did the witness at some other time make a statement that is inconsistent with the testimony he gave in court?”
![Page 4: Repeated interviewing of witnesses and suspects](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062314/56813b00550346895da39c93/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Legal Challenges: Recommended cross-examination
Bailey & Rothblatt (1971, p. 177): “Capitalize on these conflicts. This is the most
effective way of discrediting [the witness’ s] entire testimony.”
Glissan (1991, p.108):
“A true inconsistency can effectively destroy a witness, and sometimes a whole case…If you find a true inconsistency, or if you can manufacture one, then use the deposition of previous evidence to sheet it home.”
![Page 5: Repeated interviewing of witnesses and suspects](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062314/56813b00550346895da39c93/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Poets know best
• Ralph Waldo Emerson:
• “Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.”
![Page 6: Repeated interviewing of witnesses and suspects](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062314/56813b00550346895da39c93/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Multiple interviewing
• Most witnesses are interviewed repeatedly
• Relatively little research, however, on multiple interviewing
![Page 7: Repeated interviewing of witnesses and suspects](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062314/56813b00550346895da39c93/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
What do we gain from multiple interviewing?
• Opportunity to collect new information
• Opportunity to compare responses across interviews
![Page 8: Repeated interviewing of witnesses and suspects](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062314/56813b00550346895da39c93/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Collect New Information
• How often is new information generated on a second interview (not collected on the first): reminiscence?
• How accurate is reminiscent information?
![Page 9: Repeated interviewing of witnesses and suspects](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062314/56813b00550346895da39c93/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Frequency of Reminiscence
• Gilbert & Fisher (2006)
• Procedure: – See video, T1 (immed), T2 (2 days)– Free Recall or Guided Recall
• Results: 189/192 show reminiscence (others: Yuille & Turtle; Gabbert, et al)
• Mean number of reminiscences: 8.19
• Reminiscence is common experience
![Page 10: Repeated interviewing of witnesses and suspects](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062314/56813b00550346895da39c93/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Accuracy of Reminiscence
• Accuracy rate of reminiscence .87
• Comparable results reported by others, e.g., LaRooy et al.
• Conclusion – repeated testing is very likely to generate new, accurate information – as long as questions are open-ended
![Page 11: Repeated interviewing of witnesses and suspects](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062314/56813b00550346895da39c93/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Goal
• To test the assumption that inconsistency is an indicator of a weak memory or deception.
• How valid is this assumption?
![Page 12: Repeated interviewing of witnesses and suspects](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062314/56813b00550346895da39c93/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Overview
• Separate for inferences about memory and deception.
• To show that people do rely on inconsistency to infer about memory accuracy and deception.
• Q? In fact, is inconsistency a good predictor of memory accuracy and deception?
• Sometimes.
![Page 13: Repeated interviewing of witnesses and suspects](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062314/56813b00550346895da39c93/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Beliefs about Inconsistency
• Sign of a weak memory
• Sign of deception
![Page 14: Repeated interviewing of witnesses and suspects](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062314/56813b00550346895da39c93/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
People are swayed by these inconsistencies
• Surveys:– College Students (Brewer, Potter, Fisher, Bond, & Luszcz,
1999)
– Police, prosecutors, & defenders (Potter & Brewer, 1999)
• Experimental jury simulations– Berman, Narby, & Cutler (1995)
– Brewer & Hupfeld (2004)
![Page 15: Repeated interviewing of witnesses and suspects](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062314/56813b00550346895da39c93/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Legal Challenges: Recommended cross-examination
Bailey & Rothblatt (1971, p. 177): “Capitalize on these conflicts. This is the most
effective way of discrediting [the witness’ s] entire testimony.”
Glissan (1991, p.108):
“A true inconsistency can effectively destroy a witness, and sometimes a whole case…If you find a true inconsistency, or if you can manufacture one, then use the deposition of previous evidence to sheet it home.”
![Page 16: Repeated interviewing of witnesses and suspects](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062314/56813b00550346895da39c93/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Legal Challenges: Judge’s instructions
Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases,
1987,# 204, sub-para 8:…
“Did the witness at some other time make a statement that is inconsistent with the testimony he gave in court?”
![Page 17: Repeated interviewing of witnesses and suspects](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062314/56813b00550346895da39c93/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Attorneys’ vs. Researchers’ Goals
• Attorneys : to convince jurors or judges that their side of the argument is correct.
• Scientists: to find out the truth and to explain it.
![Page 18: Repeated interviewing of witnesses and suspects](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062314/56813b00550346895da39c93/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Part I: Inconsistency as a indicator of Memory Accuracy
![Page 19: Repeated interviewing of witnesses and suspects](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062314/56813b00550346895da39c93/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Scientific Research on Inconsistency
• Prior to 1970: very few studies
– Difficult to conduct (resource demanding)
– Memory theories about single recollections
– Exceptions (Erdelyi; Payne)
![Page 20: Repeated interviewing of witnesses and suspects](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062314/56813b00550346895da39c93/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Recent Studies
• Naturalistic Studies– Flashbulb memories (e.g., Pezdek)
– Holocaust survivors (Wagenaar & Groenweg)
– Epidemiological/Health (Fisher, et al)
• General Findings: some inconsistency
• Limitations: cannot measure accuracy
• Need laboratory studies to measure accuracy
![Page 21: Repeated interviewing of witnesses and suspects](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062314/56813b00550346895da39c93/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
“Blended” experiments
• 19 ExperimentsFisher & Cutler (1996), Brewer et al (1999), Patterson & Fisher (2005); Gilbert & Fisher (2006);
Mitchell, Haw, & Fisher (2003); Fisher & Hazel (in preparation)
• Method: – Event: videotape or live event– Two tests (T1 & T2):
• T1 is immediate or after a few hours• T2 is a few days or one or two weeks later
– Test questions: open-ended or closed (cued recall)– T1/T2 cue similarity: same or different, e.g.,
temporal/temporal (same) or temporal/spatial (diff.)
![Page 22: Repeated interviewing of witnesses and suspects](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062314/56813b00550346895da39c93/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Witness Recall at Time 1 & Time 2
T1: ….tall, hat, jacket, scar, red hair
T2:…..tall, hat, jacket, ……, bald,…. belt
Consistent: T1 + T2 Forgetting: T1 only
**Contradiction: T1 + T2 different**Reminiscence: T2 only
![Page 23: Repeated interviewing of witnesses and suspects](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062314/56813b00550346895da39c93/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Measuring Accuracy
• Accuracy rate = # correct___
total # responses
• Calculate separately for each of the 4 response categories:– Consistent– Reminiscent– Forgotten– Contradictory
![Page 24: Repeated interviewing of witnesses and suspects](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062314/56813b00550346895da39c93/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Measuring Consistency
• Consistenct rate = # consistent__
total # responses
• Calculate separately for each of the 4 response categories
![Page 25: Repeated interviewing of witnesses and suspects](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062314/56813b00550346895da39c93/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Three Corollaries of Belief (Inconsistency = Inaccurate)
1. Inconsistent statements are inaccurate
2. Witness who make more inconsistent statements are less accurate
3. Consistency and accuracy reflect one, common, underlying process
![Page 26: Repeated interviewing of witnesses and suspects](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062314/56813b00550346895da39c93/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Corollary # 1:Inconsistent statements are
inaccurate
• To examine accuracy of 4 kinds of statement:
• Consistent
• Forgotten
• Reminiscent
• Contradictory
![Page 27: Repeated interviewing of witnesses and suspects](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062314/56813b00550346895da39c93/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Accuracy rate per response category (Gilbert & Fisher)
Time 1 Time 2
Consistent .95 .95
Forgotten .93 --
Reminiscent -- .87
Contradictory .62 .35
![Page 28: Repeated interviewing of witnesses and suspects](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062314/56813b00550346895da39c93/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Conclusion # 1
• Inconsistent statements are less accurate, but we should distinguish between different forms of inconsistency
• Reminiscent statements are still generally (.87)
• Only contradictory statements are much less accurate (.62 @ T2; and .35 @ T2)
![Page 29: Repeated interviewing of witnesses and suspects](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062314/56813b00550346895da39c93/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Corollary # 2:Inconsistent witnesses are
inaccurate
• To examine the correlation between overall consistency and overall accuracy (across witnesses)
![Page 30: Repeated interviewing of witnesses and suspects](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062314/56813b00550346895da39c93/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Correlations between consistency and overall accuracy (Gilbert & Fisher)
• Proportion contradictions: -.17 (non-significant)
• Proportion reminiscence: .03 (non-significant)
• Similar pattern (small, non-significant correlations) in other experiments
![Page 31: Repeated interviewing of witnesses and suspects](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062314/56813b00550346895da39c93/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Conclusion # 2
• Inconsistent witnesses are only minimally less accurate than consistent witnesses.
![Page 32: Repeated interviewing of witnesses and suspects](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062314/56813b00550346895da39c93/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Puzzling Finding
• Contradictory statements are much less accurate than consistent statements, but…
• inconsistent witnesses are only minimally less accurate than (or the same as) inconsistent witnesses
![Page 33: Repeated interviewing of witnesses and suspects](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062314/56813b00550346895da39c93/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Solution to puzzle: Items are processed independently
• Accuracy of recalling one set of items (e.g., car) does not predict accuracy of recalling another set of items (e.g., perpetrator)
![Page 34: Repeated interviewing of witnesses and suspects](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062314/56813b00550346895da39c93/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Support for Independence explanation
• Examine categories of information (e.g., car, perpetrator, setting).
• Examine inter-category correlations.
• Across 8 experiments, mean inter-category correlation = .11 (Brewer, et al.1999; Mitchell,
Haw & Fisher, 2003)
![Page 35: Repeated interviewing of witnesses and suspects](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062314/56813b00550346895da39c93/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Implications of Independence for courtroom and investigation
• Cannot challenge an entire witness’s testimony, because he/she recalls some items incorrectly.
• Can challenge only those individual statements that we believe are incorrect (e.g. contradiction).
![Page 36: Repeated interviewing of witnesses and suspects](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062314/56813b00550346895da39c93/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Corollary # 3
• Consistency and accuracy reflect one, common underlying process
![Page 37: Repeated interviewing of witnesses and suspects](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062314/56813b00550346895da39c93/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Test Logic
• Do experimental manipulations have the same or different effects on consistency and accuracy? (Experimental dissociation)
• Same effects one underlying process Different effects multiple underlying
processes
![Page 38: Repeated interviewing of witnesses and suspects](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062314/56813b00550346895da39c93/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Experimental Results
• Some manipulations have the same effects on consistency and accuracy, e.g., question format (open-ended vs. closed)
• Some manipulations have different effects on consistency and accuracy, e.g. delay: decreases accuracy but increases consistency
![Page 39: Repeated interviewing of witnesses and suspects](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062314/56813b00550346895da39c93/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
Conclusions
• Some common elements -- but almost all measures have some common elements.
• Some processes influence one measure but not the other.
• Ultimate: Cannot reflexively interpret inconsistency to indicate accuracy
![Page 40: Repeated interviewing of witnesses and suspects](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062314/56813b00550346895da39c93/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
A Framework for Understanding Inconsistency
• Something must change from T1 to T2, but what?
![Page 41: Repeated interviewing of witnesses and suspects](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062314/56813b00550346895da39c93/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
Candidates for Change
• Mental representation: knowledge base
• Retrieval processes: questions, interviewers
• Metacognition: monitoring one’s knowledge
![Page 42: Repeated interviewing of witnesses and suspects](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062314/56813b00550346895da39c93/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
Part 2: Inconsistency as an indicator of deception
![Page 43: Repeated interviewing of witnesses and suspects](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062314/56813b00550346895da39c93/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
Two Approaches
1. What do people believe?
2. Is this belief valid? What is the truth?
![Page 44: Repeated interviewing of witnesses and suspects](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062314/56813b00550346895da39c93/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
Beliefs about Inconsistency as an indicator of deception: Real-world assessments
• Training agencies
• Interrogation manuals
• Surveys of police & judges
![Page 45: Repeated interviewing of witnesses and suspects](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062314/56813b00550346895da39c93/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
Beliefs about Inconsistency as an indicator of deception:
Laboratory Studies
• Self-assessments
• Experimental manipulations
![Page 46: Repeated interviewing of witnesses and suspects](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062314/56813b00550346895da39c93/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
Consistency Heuristic
• Everyone believes that inconsistent reports are grounds for doubting one’s veracity.
![Page 47: Repeated interviewing of witnesses and suspects](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062314/56813b00550346895da39c93/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
How valid is the “consistency heuristic”?
• Scientific, controlled studies
• Advantage of scientific, controlled experiments: We know who is, in fact, lying and who is telling the truth.
![Page 48: Repeated interviewing of witnesses and suspects](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062314/56813b00550346895da39c93/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
Scientific Research on Consistency and Deception
• Relatively little research
• Research is resource-demanding• Multiple testing• Compare answers across tests
• Two laboratories: Granhag/Stromwall Vrij/Fisher
![Page 49: Repeated interviewing of witnesses and suspects](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062314/56813b00550346895da39c93/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
Typical Laboratory Study
• Truth-tellers engage in an activity; liars do not do the activity, but are asked to convince an interviewer that they did.
• Interviewed/Tested twice (Int-1, Int-2)– Interval varies from hours to days– Interviewed individually or in pairs
• Compare their answers (consistency) – Within respondents (Int-1 and Int-2)– Across respondents (Resp # 1 and Resp # 2)
![Page 50: Repeated interviewing of witnesses and suspects](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062314/56813b00550346895da39c93/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
Two Patterns of Results
• Sometimes liars are as inconsistent (or even less) as truth-tellers (Granhag/Stromwall)
• Sometimes liars are more inconsistent than truth-tellers (Vrij/Fisher)
![Page 51: Repeated interviewing of witnesses and suspects](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062314/56813b00550346895da39c93/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
Differences between Granhag/Stromwall &
Vrij/Fisher
• Preparation for Interview: G/S vs. V/F
• Questions asked at interview (anticipated or not): G/S vs. V/F
• Similarity of questions at Int-1 and Int-2: G/S vs. V/F
![Page 52: Repeated interviewing of witnesses and suspects](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062314/56813b00550346895da39c93/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
Preparation for Interview
• Liars rehearse their story; truth-tellers do not
• Liars are prepared to give a narrative
![Page 53: Repeated interviewing of witnesses and suspects](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062314/56813b00550346895da39c93/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
Liars Prepare: Evidence
• Observe liars and truth-tellers before being interviewed– Secondary task—catching liars with cartoons:
Cahill + Fisher
– Videotape preparing for interview shown to observers (lie detectors): Cahill + Fisher
![Page 54: Repeated interviewing of witnesses and suspects](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062314/56813b00550346895da39c93/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
Prepared for Anticipated Questions
• Liars are prepared to answer typical questions: “What happened?”
• Liars can give same answers on two different interviews, if they are prepared (they anticipate the questions)
• G/S: anticipated Q: “What happened?” F/V: unanticipated Qs “Location of waiter?”
![Page 55: Repeated interviewing of witnesses and suspects](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062314/56813b00550346895da39c93/html5/thumbnails/55.jpg)
Strategic Differences
• Liars (be convincing, i.e. consistent) vs. Truth-tellers (be informative)
• Liars: Repeat vs. Reconstruct (Granhag/Stromwall)
• Implications for Question Similarity between Int-1 and Int-2
![Page 56: Repeated interviewing of witnesses and suspects](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062314/56813b00550346895da39c93/html5/thumbnails/56.jpg)
Similarity of Questions at Int-1 and Int-2
• Similar questions facilitate repeating earlier answer (consistent responding).
• Different questions yield more inconsistency, but mainly for liars: Verbal and pictorial (sketch) reports (Vrij et al; Leins et al)
![Page 57: Repeated interviewing of witnesses and suspects](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062314/56813b00550346895da39c93/html5/thumbnails/57.jpg)
Leveraging Liars’ strategies (consistent) to detect deception
• Different strategies– Liars: to be consistent– Truth-tellers: to provide information
• Different strategies yield different behaviors in repeated testing: To provide new information (truth-tellers) or not (liars)? (Pludwinski)
– Converging results: individuals and pairs
![Page 58: Repeated interviewing of witnesses and suspects](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062314/56813b00550346895da39c93/html5/thumbnails/58.jpg)
Summary of Deception Research
• Liars are consistent only if they can 1. prepare for and anticipate the interviewer’s
questions
2. remember their earlier (Int-1) answers
![Page 59: Repeated interviewing of witnesses and suspects](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062314/56813b00550346895da39c93/html5/thumbnails/59.jpg)
Interviewing Strategy to “produce” inconsistency in liars
• Think about how liars might prepare for an interview, and ask unanticipated questions
• Ask different questions across interviews
![Page 60: Repeated interviewing of witnesses and suspects](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062314/56813b00550346895da39c93/html5/thumbnails/60.jpg)
Overview of Inconsistency Research
• No simple rule to infer whether inconsistent respondents – have generally poor memories– are deceptive or truthful
• Behavioral patterns are complex
![Page 61: Repeated interviewing of witnesses and suspects](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062314/56813b00550346895da39c93/html5/thumbnails/61.jpg)
Approaches to complex patterns
1. Abandon reliance on inconsistency. Limited utility
a. sometimes inconsistency is diagnostic
b. we must rely on some cues; what would substitute for inconsistency?
![Page 62: Repeated interviewing of witnesses and suspects](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062314/56813b00550346895da39c93/html5/thumbnails/62.jpg)
Preferable approach
1. Better to understand the nature of inconsistency, when it is and when it is not an indicator of poor memory and deception.
a. Here, hinted at some cognitive and social approaches
b. Researchers and practitioners to develop these and other ideas more thoroughly.
![Page 63: Repeated interviewing of witnesses and suspects](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062314/56813b00550346895da39c93/html5/thumbnails/63.jpg)
Questions & Comments
• Thank you!