The dynamic interaction between eyewitnesses and interviewers: The impact of differences in perspective on memory reports and interviewer behavior.

Abstract

Despite myriad possible differences in perspectives brought to an investigative interview by eyewitnesses and interviewers, little is known about how such differences might affect eyewitness memory reports or interviewer behavior. Two experiments tested the impact of such differences in a dynamic interaction paradigm in which participants served as eyewitnesses and interviewers. In Experiment 1 (N = 38 pairs), reporting goals for eyewitnesses and interviewers were manipulated in a factorial design, with participants instructed to provide or obtain either as much information as possible or only accurate information. Matching interviewer-interviewee instructions promoted accurate reporting, regardless of the actual content of the instructions. In Experiment 2 (N = 45 pairs), access to information about corroborating eyewitness identifications was manipulated in a factorial design. Corroborating information affected interviewers, but not eyewitnesses. When interviewers did not have access to corroborating information, they provided more negative feedback, and there was a trend toward interrupting more and asking more yes/no questions. These experiments indicate that differences in perspective can have effects on both the content of a witness's report and the behavior of an interviewer. The potential for differences in perspective should be considered in research on protocols intended to maximize eyewitness report accuracy.

Policy and procedure recommendations for the collection and preservation of eyewitness identification evidence.

“…Although estimates of height, weight, and age can be biased by the witness’s own characteristics (e.g., individuals who are less than average height tend to underestimate height; see Flin & Shepherd, 1986), witnesses otherwise appear to provide an accurate, general impression of the culprit. Such descriptions, however, are often lacking in specific details (Douglass, Brewer, Semmler, Bustamante, & Hiley, 2013; Fahsing et al, 2004) that might prove useful for the construction and assessment of identification arrays (Corey, Malpass, & McQuiston, 1999), and it is therefore important that investigators use evidence-based procedures to enhance the quality of witnesses’ accounts.…”

Memorial Monitoring and Control: How Confidence and Social and Financial Consequences Affect Eyewitnesses' Reporting of Fine‐Grain Information

“…As Sporer () found, and Douglass, Brewer, Semmler, Bustmante, and Hiley (2013) note, descriptive features of offenders are often scarcely recalled and reported. Therefore, losing any of these few crucial details, through avoiding coarse‐grain information, could greatly affect an investigator's ability to locate the guilty offender (Douglass et al, ). From an applied perspective, it is therefore critical to establish why eyewitnesses avoid reporting this type of information and to determine under what conditions this coarse‐grain information avoidance is more likely to occur.…”

Effects of victim presence and coercion in restorative justice: An experimental paradigm.

“…Although estimates of height, weight, and age can be biased by the witness's own characteristics (e.g., individuals who are less than average height tend to underestimate height; see Flin & Shepherd, 1986), witnesses otherwise appear to provide an accurate, general impression of the perpetrator. Such descriptions, however, are often lacking in specific details (Douglass, Brewer, Semmler, Bustamante, & Hiley, 2013;Fahsing et al, 2004) that might prove useful for the construction and assessment of identification arrays (Corey, Malpass, & McQuiston, 1999), and it is therefore important that investigators use evidence-based procedures to enhance the quality of witnesses' accounts.…”