The Self‐Administered Witness Interview Tool (SAW‐IT): Enhancing witness recall of workplace incidents

Given the often crucial role of witness evidence in occupational health and safety investigation, statements should be obtained as soon as possible after an incident using best practice methods. The present research systematically tested the efficacy of a novel Self‐Administered Witness Interview Tool (SAW‐IT), an adapted version of the Self‐Administered Interview designed to elicit comprehensive information from witnesses to industrial events. The present study also examined the effect of schematic processing on witness recall. Results indicate that the SAW‐IT elicited significantly more correct details, as well as more precise information than a traditional incident report form. Contextual information about a worker's safety history biased the reports of participant witnesses, confirming that witnesses should be shielded from extraneous post‐event information prior to reporting. Importantly, these results demonstrate that the SAW‐IT can enhance the quality of witness reports.     

The effect of cross‐examination on the accuracy of adult eyewitness testimony

Cross‐examination permits styles of questioning that increase eyewitness error (e.g. leading questions). Previous research has shown that under cross‐examination children change many of their initially accurate answers. An experiment is reported in which the effect of cross‐examination on accuracy of adult eyewitness testimony was investigated. Twenty‐two student witnesses watched a video of a staged theft, either in pairs, or individually. Paired witnesses discussed the video with their co‐witnesses, but did not know they had seen slightly different versions. Participants in the co‐witness condition demonstrated memory conformity and recalled less accurately than witnesses in the control condition. After approximately 4 weeks all participants were cross‐examined by a trainee barrister. Following cross‐examination there was no difference in accuracy between the two experimental groups. Witnesses in both conditions made many changes to their previous reports by altering both initially correct and incorrect answers. The results demonstrate negative effects of cross‐examination on the accuracy of adult eyewitness testimony. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Post‐identification feedback effects: Investigators and evaluators

We investigated the effects of post‐identification feedback and viewing conditions on beliefs and interviewing tactics of participant‐investigators, crime reports of participant‐witnesses and participant‐evaluators' credibility judgments of the witnesses. Study 1 participants assumed the roles of witness and investigator (N = 167 pairs). Witnesses' view of a simulated crime video was manipulated by distance from viewing monitor: 2 or 9 ft. Participants made a line‐up identification and received either positive feedback or no feedback. Significant effects for witnesses and investigators were associated with viewing condition and post‐identification feedback. Interviews between investigator‐witness pairs were videotaped. Investigators asked more positive, leading questions when they were led to believe that the witness had identified the suspect. In Study 2 evaluators (N = 302) viewed the witness‐investigator interviews. Viewing condition had no effect on judgments of witness credibility but positive post‐identification feedback led evaluators to judge witnesses as more credible than witnesses who received no feedback. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Effect of viewing the interview and identification process on juror perceptions of eyewitness accuracy

This study examined whether showing jurors a video of the witness's initial attempts to describe and identify the perpetrator would facilitate jurors' ability to discriminate between accurate and inaccurate witnesses. Mock jurors observed a simulated trial in which the key witness testified under direct examination and cross‐examination. The jurors saw either the witness's testimony or the witness's testimony plus videotape footage of the earlier police interviews in which the witness described and attempted to identify the perpetrator. Results support the hypothesis: Jurors in the examination‐plus‐video condition discriminated between accurate and inaccurate witnesses better than jurors in the examination‐only condition. We discuss various mechanisms to explain the advantage provided by the video. It is recommended that police officers videotape the line‐up procedure and that jurors be shown this video at trial. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Motivational Bias in Criminal Investigators' Judgments of Witness Reliability1

An experiment was conducted where experienced criminal investigators (N = 49) evaluated the testimony of a witness who either confirmed or disconfirmed the focal hypothesis in a homicide case. Participants' motivation to perpetuate the hypothesis was manipulated by varying the need for cognitive closure via time pressure. The hypothesis‐inconsistent witness was perceived as less reliable and credible, although its background and witnessing conditions were identical to those of the hypothesis‐consistent witness. While this asymmetrical skepticism was not moderated by time pressure, participants under high (vs. low) time pressure were less inclined to adjust their confidence in the hypothesis in line with the witness testimony. Discussion focuses on implications for criminal investigations and theoretical contributions to investigative psychology.     

A comfortable witness is a good witness: rapport‐building and susceptibility to misinformation in an investigative mock‐crime interview

Major investigative interviewing protocols such as the Cognitive Interview recommend that investigators build rapport with cooperative adult witnesses at the beginning of a police interview. Although research substantiates the benefits of rapport‐building on the accuracy of child witness reports, few studies have examined whether similar benefits apply to adult witnesses. The present study investigated whether verbal rapport‐building techniques increase adult witness report accuracy and decrease their susceptibility to post‐event misinformation. One‐hundred eleven college adults viewed a videotaped mock‐crime, received post‐event misinformation (or correct information) about the crime, and were subsequently interviewed by a research assistant who built rapport (or did not build rapport) before recalling the mock‐crime. Results indicated that rapport‐building increased the quality of witness recall by decreasing the percentage of inaccurate and misinformation reported, particularly in response to open‐ended questions. We discuss implications and recommendations for law enforcement. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Witness preparation training with real and simulated criminal defendants

Two studies examined the impact of witness preparation training with criminal defendants. In the first study, mock criminal defendants testified twice on videotape about minor crimes they were accused of but had not committed. Approximately half underwent witness preparation between their first and second testimony simulations. In the second study, eight public defender clients were videotaped during testimony simulations both before and after being prepared to testify. In both studies, ratings by trained evaluators indicated that witness preparation was associated with increases in the use of several testimony delivery skills, improvements in overall testimony quality, and reductions in apparent guilt. Training was also associated in both studies with an unintended decrease in expressiveness. Ratings from the mock defendant study further suggested that prepared defendants were seen as more credible than unprepared defendants because they used more effective testimony delivery skills, and as less likely to be guilty than unprepared defendants because they were perceived as being more credible.     

Child‐Witness and Defendant Credibility: Child Evidence Presentation Mode and Judicial Instructions1

Child‐witness presentation mode, judicial instructions, and deliberation stage effects on juror ratings of child witness and defendant were investigated Perceptions of the impact of presentation mode on witnesses, juror task, and justice also were explored. Participants (N= 108) viewed a simulated child sexual abuse trial videotape. Overall child‐witness credibility was significantly more positive with videodeposition or court‐given child evidence than with videolink. The defendant was seen as more definitely guilty when child testimony was court given than by videodeposition or videolink. Presentation mode also significantly influenced perceived impact on child witness, defendant case, and juror task. Judicial instructions interacted with presentation mode to affect perceptions of impact on child witness and juror task. Findings are discussed in relation to previous research, and implications for future research and practice are outlined.     

Replications and Limitations of a Two-Factor Model of Child Witness Credibility

Two experiments are reported that test the idea that jurors perceive child witnesses in terms of a 2-factor model of credibility with the factors defined as cognitive ability and honesty (Leippe & Romanczyk, 1987; Ross, Millers, & Moran, 1989). In the first experiment, 300 mock jurors watched a realistic videotaped recreation of a sexual abuse trial and rated the credibility of the child witness. Mock jurors perceived the child witness in terms of 2 factors: cognitive ability and honesty. Only honesty predicted verdict. These findings were replicated in Experiment 2 ( N = 300) when only the child's testimony was presented and the perceptions of the child witness were not contaminated by the testimony of the other witnesses in the trial.     

Does Knowledge that a Crime Was Staged Affect Eyewitness Performance?1

The Staged crime has generally been considered a valid paradigm for assessing eyewitness identification accuracy. Yet the typical procedure informs the witness before the lineup task that the event was staged. The current study manipulated whether or not witnesses were informed that the witnessed crime was staged (information variable). Two other variables, the presence or absence of the perpetrator in the photo-lineup and the physical similarity of lineup members, were manipulated to asses any possible interactions with the information variable. A theft was staged individually for 184 unsuspecting witnesses who were then randomly assigned to be either informed that the theft was staged or not informed. Next, all witnesses were met by a uniformed security officer who showed them a photo-lineup of six individuals. Half of the witnesses viewed a perpetrator-present lineup with either high or low physical similarity between the foils and the perpatrator and half viewed a perpetrator-absent lineup with either high or low physical similarity. Three confidence measures, one cooperation measure, and an Embedded Figures Test score were obtained. The results showed that (a) the information variable did not affect the likelihood that a witness would attempt an identification; (b) the information variable did not have a main effect on the particular choices made by the witnesses nor did it interact with lineup similarity, but it did interact with the presence-absence variable; and (c) the information variable did not affect witness confidence either as a main effect or interaction effect, but, was relatively consistent in affecting the correlation between confidence and accuracy such that the correlation was lower for witnesses who were not informed. The interaction between the information variable and the presence-absence variable on accuracy was due to the uninformed witnesses being less accurate than the informcd witnesses in the perpetrator-present condition. The results suggest that accuracy among actual eyewitnesses may be lower than obtained in the typical staged crime procedure and that accuracy-confidence correlations may be overestimated by the typical staged crime.     

Disorder in the courtroom? Child witnesses under cross-examination

When a witness gives evidence in an adversarial criminal trial, there are two main questioning phases: direct examination and cross-examination. Special provisions are sometimes made for children to give direct evidence, but the majority of child witnesses are still cross-examined. While several decades of research have demonstrated how to elicit children’s direct evidence in a manner that promotes completeness and accuracy, the cross-examination process directly violates many of these principles. Here, we outline the characteristics of cross-examination, particularly as it pertains to children, and we review research about its impact on children, their testimony, and their credibility. We consider options for reforming the cross-examination process and propose avenues for future research.     

Witnesses and Their Testimony: Effects of Ordering on Juror Verdicts1

Thibaut and Walker's claim that criminal courtroom proceedings are subject to pervasive recency effects was experimentally investigated. Previous research on order effects in a legal setting is critically reviewed; it is argued that this research fails to provide adequate simulation of courtroom protocol. An experiment was designed to retain the structure of a criminal trial while manipulating witness and testimony order. In contrast to earlier research, primacy effects were found. The greatest number of guilty verdicts by simulated jurors occurred when the strongest “guilty” witnesses and “guilty” testimony by these witnesses came first. These results are discussed with respect to (a) witness and testimony order, (b) length of case, and (c) type of case used.     

“He Couldn't Have Done It,He Was With Me!”: The Impact of Alibi Witness Age and Relationship

Undergraduate participants who conducted a simulated police investigation were presented with either a child (6 years old) or adult (25 years old) alibi witness, who was either the son or neighbor of the participant's suspect. Replicating previous research, participants were more likely to believe the adult neighbor alibi witness than the adult son. In fact, an alibi provided by the adult son actually proved detrimental to that suspect, as participants thought the suspect was more likely to be guilty after viewing an alibi provided by the adult son. However, child‐provided alibis reduced perceptions of suspect guilt, regardless of that child's relationship to the suspect. The child alibi witnesses were also viewed by the participants as more credible than the adult witnesses. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Witness Vetting: What Determines Detectives' Perceptions of Witness Credibility?

During the course of a criminal investigation witness vetting, a detective's process of determining the credibility and weight of witness information, can lead to errors in an investigation that can go virtually unchallenged. Witness confidence, opportunity to view, and type of information proffered were examined in relation to detective inferences about witness reliability, accuracy, and probable cause to arrest. Experiment 1 involved 39 sworn law enforcement officers, and experiment 2 involved 43 sworn law enforcement officers and 86 mock detectives. Participants viewed a digital recording depicting a witness describing a gas station robbery (Experiment 1) or a campus mugging (Experiment 2). Witness confidence and detectives' inferences about culprit information influenced the vetting process and lent credibility to a confident witness whose accuracy was objectively unknown. Furthermore, the evidence indicates that sworn law enforcement are comparable with untrained observers in their use of social inference cues (i.e. confidence) in determining witness credibility; however, social inference can be assuaged by the rational, rule‐governed, decision framework established for witness vetting. Social inference processes inherent in the detective‐witness dyad is influenced by legal procedures in vetting witness information. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Examining the positive effects of rapport building: When and why does rapport building benefit adult eyewitness memory?

Most investigative interviewing protocols recommend building rapport with cooperative adult witnesses to increase the accuracy of their reports. Although a few recent studies support the benefits of rapport building on adult witness recall, no study has examined whether the timing of rapport in relation to post-event misinformation affects recall accuracy, and whether these effects are related to witness anxiety levels throughout the interview. The present study provided two hundred and thirty-three undergraduates with a videotaped mock crime followed by building high or low rapport either before or after they received post-event misinformation. All witnesses were then interviewed about the mock crime. Results indicated that high rapport before misinformation increased the amount of accurate information reported in a subsequent witness interview compared to low rapport. However, these recall benefits were not due to a reduction in anxiety. Theoretical implications and practical recommendations for police interviewing practices are discussed.     

Witness self‐efficacy: Development and validation of the construct

Despite the application of Self‐Efficacy Theory (Bandura, 1977 , 2000 ) to many areas of psychology, there is a lack of research on self‐efficacy in the ability to testify in court. The present study fills this gap by incrementally developing the construct of Witness Self‐Efficacy and establishing its psychometric properties. Study I features exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses yielding a two‐factor Witness Self‐Efficacy Scale (WSES). The two components are Poise and Communication Style. Study II uses a second data collection to show that both WSES domains possess convergent, divergent, and predictive validity relations consistent with those expected using an SET framework. Notably, WSES components predicted perceptions of witness credibility and sentencing outcomes above and beyond witness extraversion, general self‐efficacy, and general self‐confidence. Implications for SET and witness preparation training are discussed. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.