Confirmation bias in witness interviewing: Can interviewers ignore their preconceptions?

Basic research on expectancy effects suggests that investigative interviewers with pre-conceived notions about a crime may negatively influence the interview process in meaningful ways, yet many interviewing protocols recommend that interviewers review all available information prior to conducting their interviews. Previous research suggests that interviewers with no pre-interview knowledge elicit more detailed and accurate accounts than their informed counterparts (Cantlon, et al., 1996; Rivard et al., under review). The current study investigated whether (a) the benefit of blind versus informed interviewing is moderated by cautionary interviewer instructions to avoid suggestive questions and (b) whether any possible effects of pre-interview information extend beyond the immediate context of the forensic interview. ^ Paired participants (N = 584) were assigned randomly either to the role of interviewer or witness. Witnesses viewed a mock crime video and were interviewed one week later by an interviewer who received either correct, incorrect, or no information about the crime event. Half of the interviewers were assigned randomly to receive additional instructions to avoid suggestive questions. All participants returned 1 week after the interview to recall the crime video (for the witness) or the information recalled by the witness during the interview (for the interviewer). All interviews and delayed recall measures were scored for the quantity and accuracy of information reported. ^ Results replicate earlier findings that blind interviewers elicit more information from witnesses, without a decrease in accuracy rate. However instructions to avoid suggestive questions did not moderate the effect of blind versus informed interviewing on witness recall during the interview. Results further demonstrate that the effects of blind versus non-blind interviewing may extend beyond the immediate context of the interview to a later recall attempt. With instructions to avoid suggestive questions, witnesses of blind interviewers were more accurate than witnesses of incorrectly informed interviewers when recalling the event 1 week later. In addition, blind interviewers had more accurate memories for the witnesses' account of the event during the interview compared to non-blind interviewers.^

Investigative interviewing and memory: How accurate are interviewers recollections of investigative interviews?

Contrary to interviewing guidelines, a considerable portion of witness interviews are not recorded. Investigators’ memory, their interview notes, and any subsequent interview reports therefore become important pieces of evidence; the accuracy of interviewers’ memory or such reports is therefore of crucial importance when interviewers testify in court regarding witness interviews. A detailed recollection of the actual exchange during such interviews and how information was elicited from the witness will allow for a better assessment of statement veracity in court. ^ Two studies were designed to examine interviewers’ memory for a prior witness interview. Study One varied interviewer note-taking and type of subsequent interview report written by interviewers by including a sample of undergraduates and implementing a two-week delay between interview and recall. Study Two varied levels of interviewing experience in addition to report type and note-taking by comparing experienced police interviewers to a student sample. Participants interviewed a mock witness about a crime, while taking notes or not, and wrote an interview report two weeks later (Study One) or immediately after (Study Two). Interview reports were written either in a summarized format, which asked interviewers for a summary of everything that occurred during the interview, or verbatim format, which asked interviewers to record in transcript format the questions they asked and the witness’s responses. Interviews were videotaped and transcribed. Transcriptions were compared to interview reports to score for accuracy and omission of interview content. ^ Results from both studies indicate that much interview information is lost between interview and report especially after a two-week delay. The majority of information reported by interviewers is accurate, although even interviewers who recalled information immediately after still reported a troubling amount of inaccurate information. Note-taking was found to increase accuracy and completeness of interviewer reports especially after a two week delay. Report type only influenced recall of interviewer questions. Experienced police interviewers were not any better at recalling a prior witness interview than student interviewers. Results emphasize the need to record witness interviews to allow for more accurate and complete interview reconstruction by interviewers, even if interview notes are available. ^

Investigative Interviewing and Memory: How Accurate Are Interviewers’ Recollections of Investigative Interviews?

Contrary to interviewing guidelines, a considerable portion of witness interviews are not recorded. Investigators’ memory, their interview notes, and any subsequent interview reports therefore become important pieces of evidence; the accuracy of interviewers’ memory or such reports is therefore of crucial importance when interviewers testify in court regarding witness interviews. A detailed recollection of the actual exchange during such interviews and how information was elicited from the witness will allow for a better assessment of statement veracity in court. Two studies were designed to examine interviewers’ memory for a prior witness interview. Study One varied interviewer note-taking and type of subsequent interview report written by interviewers by including a sample of undergraduates and implementing a two-week delay between interview and recall. Study Two varied levels of interviewing experience in addition to report type and note-taking by comparing experienced police interviewers to a student sample. Participants interviewed a mock witness about a crime, while taking notes or not, and wrote an interview report two weeks later (Study One) or immediately after (Study Two). Interview reports were written either in a summarized format, which asked interviewers for a summary of everything that occurred during the interview, or verbatim format, which asked interviewers to record in transcript format the questions they asked and the witness’s responses. Interviews were videotaped and transcribed. Transcriptions were compared to interview reports to score for accuracy and omission of interview content. Results from both studies indicate that much interview information is lost between interview and report especially after a two-week delay. The majority of information reported by interviewers is accurate, although even interviewers who recalled information immediately after still reported a troubling amount of inaccurate information. Note-taking was found to increase accuracy and completeness of interviewer reports especially after a two week delay. Report type only influenced recall of interviewer questions. Experienced police interviewers were not any better at recalling a prior witness interview than student interviewers. Results emphasize the need to record witness interviews to allow for more accurate and complete interview reconstruction by interviewers, even if interview notes are available.