Interview techniques This week we will focus on interviewing
witnesses Next week on suspects However be aware of that some techniques may be
applicable to both Witnesses perceived to produce central leads in
police investigations( Kebbell & Milne, 1998) Interviewing central to police investigations Critical component- ability of officer to
obtain accurate and detailed information Issues - does this always happen?
Eyewitness testimony Tendency for eyewitness testimony to be
incomplete, reconstructed, unreliable and malleable
Police procedures shown to affect responses
Eg line up style etc Feedback both positive and negative
Also how witnesses interviewed about the event crucial in affecting responses
Misinformation effectsMisinformation effect Leading or biased questioning Even slight changes of wording can affect response Eg Loftus and Palmer 1974 car crash studies Been replicated in numerous studies ( see Ceci &
Bruck, 1993) Once we believe in a memory whether true of false Becomes difficult to change ( Brainerd & Poole,
1997) Source monitoring errors Remembering information but not where it was acquired Whether real or acquired forgotten Crombag el al 1996 – Amsterdam plane crash Numerous reports helped form a strong visual image in
memory
Misinformation effectsUnconscious transference Seeing something in one context and
transferring it to another If been shown mugshot of suspect (or seen in
media reports) When faced with suspect in line up may
recognise them but not remember where from Suggested to increase mistaken identity by 10%
(Deffenbacher & Loftus, 1982) Brown et al (1977) Witnesses most readily identified suspect in
ID parade when seen at event and in mugshot However also as ready to identify when only
seen in mugshot not incident
Issues Police relatively reluctant to accept advice from
psychologists Canteen culture (Mitchell & Monroe, 1996)-
Prevents change
Meet training needs from within Eg 1981 Human Awareness Training introduced to
London Met. .for new recruits Significant departure – traditionally training
focused on rote learning of law and police powers However within few years name changed to Policing
Skills – firmly removing any psychological input Implying essential skills could be taught by
those inside the organisation
Interviewing styles However significant developments have been made in
linking psychological research with interviewing techniques –
Particularly in relation to interviewing witnesses Traditionally police training focused on
interviewing of suspects Since 1993 a course (National Package on
Investigative Interview Training) has been used to train police officers
Two techniques devised by psychologists are core to the course:
The cognitive interview and conversation management
Interviewing stylesBefore exploring these techniques it is worth
looking at studies of interview technique of police with no training
Little knowledge about way in which police interview witnesses
Two studies of real interviews Fisher, Geiselman and Raymond (1987) – USA George (1991) – UK closed questions forced choice questions leading questions misleading questions
Interviews – No training Experienced detectives – started with free
narrative but interrupted after average 7.5 seconds.
Interruptions common – witness begins to shorten responses.
Followed by many short answer (closed) questions E.g what colour were his eyes – as opposed to
tell me about his eyes Frequent use of leading/misleading questions Interviewees passive. George (1991) – UK similar findings – many closed
and leading questions, open questions infrequent
Issues Preventing free narrative by interruption
reduces amount of valuable information gained
Substantial amount information gained at this stage ( Stone & Deluca, 1980)
Reduces responses for rest interview Less likely to make deep attempts at
retrieval
Issues Forced choice questions in typical
interview Fisher et al (1987) found 3 open ended and 26 short answer questions
Swift manner of delivery – allowing only 1 sec between response – again does not allow for recollection
Passivity of interviewee Interviewer in control creates structure
of interview Interviewee not encouraged to give account
in own way – may miss details which are relevant
Example witness suggestibility Wells & Loftus (2001) cite case of misidentification of Thomas
Brewster 1984 male and female friends parked in remote area of California Car drove by 3 times then bullet shot through window killing
male Killer then forced female from car and sexually assaulted her She worked with artist to develop sketch killer Local resident became suspect as he bore likeness to sketch Shown photo line up week later but did not make positive
identification Next day same result from real line up No arrest 4 years later shown photo line up No positive identification 11 years later 1995 2 new detectives assigned to case She identified Brewster from photos they showed her And also
from live line up New DNA evidence exonerated Brewster before decision made
So what happened? Thought photo looked familiar Was not reminded she had
previously seen suspect in mugshots and line-ups Questioned about where she knew him with closed response
questions Then asked if he could be ‘guy who shot Terry’ She said he looked familiar She was asked to indicate this on
statement form She asked what they wanted her to say Told her body language had suggested she thought it was suspect ‘.. You became flushed Why did you do that?’ ‘I don’t know well immediately in my mind , you know, in my mind thinks is that the
person you know kind of …’ ‘That’s the answer I’m looking for could that be the guy who did all this?’ ‘Yeah’ Goes on to suggest that what she says in statement must
corroborate identification 6 days later she made an absolutely positive identification
Other reasons which may affect eyewitness interviews Eyewitnesses in particular those personally
involved Suppressing information Eg because the memory
is too painful
Embarrassment discussing event eg those sexually abused
Linguistic ability / learning difficulties High cognitive demands of interview Compliance
Current focus Increasingly more attention has been paid to
interview techniques used with witnesses Previously more focus on interviewing suspects
In particular the issues relating to interviewing victims
Who may have been highly traumatised by the event
And in particular issues relating to child witnesses
in cases of a sexual nature Many forces now adopted cognitive techniques
Cognitive Interview techniques
Basic Cognitive Interview Developed by Fisher and Geiselman in
1980’s. Derived from cognitive psychology
Later developed Enhanced Cognitive Interview
Emphasis on memory and communication Not only must witnesses be able to retrieve
information from memory They must also be able (and allowed) to communicate this in words (ECI)
Basic Cognitive interview Process of guided retrieval Aim to avoid cognitive overload Enhance retrieval Techniques build on psychological
principles suggested to aid recall
Report everything instruction Mental Reinstatement of Context Recall in a Variety of Temporal Orders Change Perspectives
Basic cognitive interviewReport everything instruction
Witnesses may assume police already know a lot about event
May think some aspects irrelevant Also affected by social considerations Past experience of being interviewed Being asked to report everything thus
elicits more information
Basic cognitive interviewMental Reinstatement of Context
Memory of an event will be affected by the context
Eg mood of eyewitness what they were doing at the time – where they were going etc
May all affect the memory trace
Asked to put themselves back into event Aspects of environment serve as contextual cues Asked to remember smells what they heard etc as
well as what was seen
Basic cognitive interviewRecall in a Variety of Temporal Orders
Reliving the event in different orders We tend to tell a story in chronological order Recalling something in a different order creates
new retrieval path in memory May help to recall information previously
glossed over Geiselman & Callot (1990) found recall of
correct information improved when witnesses asked to recall once from beginning and once backwards
As opposed to twice from the beginning
Basic cognitive interviewChange Perspectives
Suggested our recall egocentric Affected by beliefs etc Recall from another witnesses perspective Danger with this witness may suggest what
they think should have been seen
The Enhanced Cognitive Interview (ECI)
Fisher and Geiselman (1992) – similar principles to CI
Offers more guidance about overall structure of interview -noted police techniques relating to ordering of questions haphazard
Recognises social context. Good interviewing is about memory and communication
Use supportive style Interviewer role is as facilitator – Interviewee in dominant position Contrast to traditional techniques where police
officer assumes control and asserts authority
The Enhanced Cognitive Interview (ECI)
Interview should be in stages with sub-goals at beginning, middle and end
Seven phases: Greet and Rapport Explain Aims Initiate Free Report Questioning Varied Retrieval/Extensive Retrieval Summary Closure
The Enhanced Cognitive Interview (ECI)
Greet and Rapport
Establish good rapport with witness Encourage active participation If witness is anxious some time should be
spent on relaxation techniques Issues – time consuming Explain Aims Taking into account potential issues any
lack of understanding on part of witness etc
The Enhanced Cognitive Interview (ECI)
Focused concentration
Need for witness to concentrate hard and recall more and more detail
Eg sensory representations – smell of culprit what they said how said etc
Detailed account of clothing facial features etc
Also need to feel they have unlimited time to recall
The Enhanced Cognitive Interview (ECI)
Initiate Free Report
Encourage participant to recall in own words and time without interruption
Questioning
Sensitive questioning particularly important for victims
Supportive / non judgemental – so reduce chance of suppression
The Enhanced Cognitive Interview (ECI)
Varied Retrieval/Extensive Retrieval
Going back over event many times Using methods in basic interview Context reinstatement varying perspectives
Summary Giving witness chance to hear whole
statement Closure
Evaluation CI
Studies tend to show a large increase in the information elicited from witnesses
George (1991) – 55% increase above standard interview
Geiselman (1984) – 35% increase
Importantly studies also suggest there is no increase in the amount of inaccurate information
Evaluation ECI Up to 75% more information than the standard
interview and 45% more than just CI in lab studies
Also effective in real police interviews – ECI produces 63% more information and corroborative evidence indicates no increase in erroneous information
Effective with adults, children, elderly and people with learning difficulties
Evaluation cognitive interview Only works with cooperative witnesses Time consuming It also requires flexibility and skill
by the interviewer – not easy to train Many training programmes are ‘in house’ –
not led by psychologists.
Methodological problem – what is a ‘standard interview’?
Children as Witnesses Cognitive interview techniques suggested
to be most effective with children Particularly in child abuse cases
Attempts to elicit clues via other methods
Eg playing with dolls, drawing Use of projective tests etc Open to errors of interpretation from
interviewer
References Brown, E. Deffenbacher, K. A. 7 Sturgill, W. (1977)
Memories for faces and the circumstances of the encounter, Journal of Applied Psychology, 62: 311-318
Deffenbacher, K. A. & Loftus, E.F. (1982) Do juries share a common understanding concerning eyewitness behaviour? Law and Human Behaviour, 6: 15-30
Memon, Vrij and Bull (1998). Psychology and the Law: Truthfulness, Accuracy and Credibility. McGraw Hill
McGuire, J Mason, T. & O’Kane, A. (Eds) (2000) Behaviour, Crime and Legal Processes, Chichester, John Wiley & Sons
Milne and Bull (1999). Investigative Interviewing: Psychology and Practice. London, Wiley.
Hollins, C.R. (1989) Psychology and crime: An introduction to criminological psychology, London, Routledge.
.
ReferencesMemon, Vrij and Bull (2003). Psychology and Law (2nd
Edition). WileyMilne, R & Bull, R (1999) Investigative Interviewing:
Psychology and Practice, Chichester, John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
http://eyewitness.utep.edu the homepage of the Eyewitness Identification Research Laboratory, University of Texas. Good for information and some practical exercises on line ups.
http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/faculty/gwells/homepage.htm Prof. Gary Wells homepage. Access to many of his articles, news items and to video footage of eyewitness identification
Top Related