Interviewing victims and witnesses of crime.

Fisher, Ronald P.

doi:10.1037/1076-8971.1.4.732

Cited by 116 publications

(124 citation statements)

References 78 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

118

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A large body of research suggests that the use of openended (free recall) neutral questioning that allows one to report only information that one feels sure about and at a level of detail of one's own choosing, enhances memory accuracy considerably, as compared with the use of more focused questions (e.g., Fisher, 1995;Fisher, Falkner, Trevisan, & McCauley, 2000;Powell, Fisher, Wright, Brewer, & Williams, 2005;Wells et al, 2000). However, other studies have shown that rememberers often spontaneously respond to such questions by retrieving gist representations (Brainerd & Reyna, 2002;Pansky, 2010;Pansky & Koriat, 2004).…”

Section: Implications and Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inoculating against eyewitness suggestibility via interpolated verbatim vs. gist testing

Pansky

Tenenboim

2010

Mem Cogn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In real-life situations, eyewitnesses often have control over the level of generality in which they choose to report event information. In the present study, we adopted an early-intervention approach to investigate to what extent eyewitness memory may be inoculated against suggestibility, following two different levels of interpolated reporting: verbatim and gist. After viewing a target event, participants responded to interpolated questions that required reporting of target details at either the verbatim or the gist level. After 48 hr, both groups of participants were misled about half of the target details and were finally tested for verbatim memory of all the details. The findings were consistent with our predictions: Whereas verbatim testing was successful in completely inoculating against suggestibility, gist testing did not reduce it whatsoever. These findings are particularly interesting in light of the comparable testing effects found for these two modes of interpolated testing.

show abstract

Section: Implications and Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inoculating against eyewitness suggestibility via interpolated verbatim vs. gist testing

Pansky

Tenenboim

2010

Mem Cogn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is not clear how law enforcement procedures can achieve these goals. Perhaps procedures can be improved so that they restrict contamination of the original memory, and perhaps techniques can be developed for getting more effective access to the original memory through more sophisticated interviewing (Fisher, 1995;Malpass, 1996;Malpass & Devine, 1981) or source monitoring techniques (Johnson, Hashtroudi, & Lindsay, 1993). As noted earlier, an overall difference in lineup choosing rate appears to be the major contrast between simultaneous-and sequential-lineup techniques.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A policy evaluation of simultaneous and sequential lineups.

Malpass¹

2006

Psychology, Public Policy, and Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many states and communities are rewriting their eyewitness identification policies. Some of these jurisdictions are excluding simultaneous lineups altogether, and others are allowing them if double-blind administration of sequential lineups is not possible. The Innocence Project advocates the latter and puts forward blind sequential-lineup administration as the best form of lineup identification. Although sequential lineups are claimed to be superior, no explicit policy analysis has been done. In the present study, the author uses a policy-analysis model based on decision theory to examine the utility of simultaneous and sequential lineups, as well as to examine a range of values placed on identification outcomes and their probabilities. Simultaneous lineups are shown to be superior to sequential lineups under most conditions examined in this analysis.Keywords: simultaneous lineups, sequential lineups, identification outcomes, policy, utility model Eyewitness identification has been the focus of vigorous investigation for more than a quarter of a century. The range of topics studied has grown, and the presence of the field has expanded in journal publications, in the courses available in universities, and in the textbooks available for these courses. To some degree, the field has attracted attention from television and print media, with programs on both broadcast and cable networks devoted in whole or in part to eyewitness identification.The focal concerns of eyewitness research have always included the improvement of the investigative tools available to law enforcement. Part of this focus is on a reduction in identification errors through improved procedures and personnel training. It is obvious that every erroneous conclusion that an innocent person is guilty involves two injustices: prosecuting, and perhaps incarcerating, an innocent person and causing the actual culprit to remain free and unprosecuted, with the possibility of the culprit committing additional crimes.The injustice of wrongful conviction and the role of eyewitness identification in the process have been brought to public attention periodically in the last 200 or so years, sometimes through widely publicized cases and sometimes through systematic (self-) examination of errors and inadequacies in the criminal justice system. The early 19th century case of Sergeant Lesurques is interesting because seven men were executed in the wake of a robbery committed by five persons

show abstract

“…Accommodating this type of activation may be essential to reduce pain and emotions is also emphasized in best practice guidelines. For example, the Achieving best evidence guidance for interviewing victims and witnesses from the UK Ministry of Justice (2011a) Fisher and Geiselman also point out the importance of helping witnesses to control heightened arousal in investigative interviews, to be able to enhance the memory process and ability to communicate (Fisher, 1995;Fisher & Geiselman, 1992). Even though guidelines in the forensic literature emphasize the importance of regulating or reducing negative emotions in police interviews, there is little knowledge of exactly how this should be done and how the process may unfold.…”

Section: Accommodating Vulnerability and Contributing To The Healing mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The training is based on PEACE, the British police training package in investigative interviewing (Clarke & Milne, 2001;Milne, Shaw, & Bull, 2007). PEACE incorporates two main approaches to investigative interviewing, namely the (enhanced) cognitive interview (Fisher, 1995;Fisher & Geiselman, 1992 and conversation management (Shepherd, 1988;Shepherd & Griffiths, 2013). The acronym PEACE represents the five phases of the interview; 1)…”

Section: Investigative Interviewingmentioning

confidence: 99%