Protecting Against Misinformation: Examining the Effect of Empirically Based Investigative Interviewing on Misinformation Reporting

Abstract

Children who are involved in legal cases are often interviewed about events they witnessed or that might have happened to them. Occasionally, after such interviews, children are confronted with misinformation regarding their experiences. The question that arises is whether their earlier interviews may protect them from reporting misinformation. The goal of the present experiment was to assess whether empirically based interviewing by means of the National Institute for Child Health and Development (NICHD) Protocol would affect the reporting of misinformation in children. Children were involved in an interactive event (i.e., science demonstration). Following this, three experimental groups were created: one group was interviewed using the NICHD Protocol, one group had to freely recall what they experienced, and one group was not asked to retrieve any memories about the event. Next, all children received misinformation concerning the event and were then subjected to a final memory test. We found that children's recall during the NICHD interview protected children against the incorporation of misinformation in their accounts of the event. This effect was absent in the other two conditions. The current experiment suggests that evidence-based investigative interviewing can inoculate children's memory against the corrupting impact of misinformation.

The NICHD interview protocol used by Dutch child protection workers: Effects on interview style, children's reported information and susceptibility to suggestion

“…Our final research question concerned the possible protective effect of the NICHD protocol on yielding to suggestive questioning. On the basis of a recent study by Otgaar et al (2020), which included a real‐life experience (participation in a science experiment), we expected similar results in the current study. For the three suggestive questions we asked, we found a significant result for the second question (“You told me at the beginning of the interview you didn't like the fact your parents took you to Australia, right?”), but not for the other two suggestive questions.…”

“…We asked three suggestive questions and two true memory questions after each interview. On the basis of prior research (e.g., Otgaar et al, 2020) we expected that the NICHD protocol interviews, but not the control interviews, would provide protection against the suggestive questions.…”

“…Otgaar et al (2019) found support for the retrieval‐enhanced suggestibility effect in children aged 5 to 10 when they were provided with misinformation after watching a video and interviewed with the NICHD protocol immediately afterwards. However, a subsequent study involving a real life event (participation in a science experiment) found no such evidence, suggesting a possible difference between watching a video and a real life experience (Otgaar et al, 2020). In the latter study, children aged 5 to 11 were interviewed after the real life event with either the NICHD protocol, a free recall condition or no interview (these children were instructed not to retrieve memories of the event).…”

“…Findings indicated that the use of the NICHD protocol protected against misinformation and that children in the NICHD protocol condition also provided more details about the experienced event compared to the free recall condition. This discrepancy in findings regarding the retrieval‐enhanced suggestibility could be explained by the fact that real life experiences generate stronger memories for the event, which are more resistant to misinformation (Otgaar et al, 2020). Since the current study was conducted in child protection practice including actually experienced events, we expected a similar protective effect of the NICHD protocol on misinformation reporting provided after the interview.…”

Children’s ability to edit their memories when learning about the environment from credible and noncredible websites

“…The design comprised a 2 (Age: 7- to 9-year-olds vs. 10- to 12-year-olds) by 2 (Condition: Credibility information given at test vs. no information given) between-subjects experimental design. In line with research on children’s memories with the same delays as in this study, we set a target sample of 15 per cell (e.g., Buratti et al, 2014 ; Otgaar et al, 2020 ; Prabhakar & Hudson, 2019 ). The final N was just shy of this target ( N = 54).…”