Can Good Interviewing Overcome Poor Witnessing Conditions?

1. Can Good Interviewing Overcome Poor Witnessing Conditions? Ronald P. Fisher, Jillian Rivard, Drew Leins & LeoniPludwinski Florida International University Funded by the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group / J-FBI-10-009

2. The Setting • Interview of detainee about meeting with terrorists • Witness testifying in court

3. Interpreting inaccurate or inconsistent recollections • Sometimes, witness describes event incorrectly (or inconsistently) • We infer poor witness memory, and discount witness’ testimony • Alternative interpretation (poor interview)

4. How does poor interviewing lead to witness errors or inconsistency? • The role of metacognitive monitoring

5. Witness’s Knowledge (encoding) vs. Interviewing • Good metacognition ensures high accuracy—even if poorly encoded • Which is more important: witness’s knowledge (encoding) or interviewing?

6. Conceptual Design • Event encoding: Good vs. Poor • Interview: Good vs. Poor • Dependent measures: accuracy and consistency

7. Method • N = 68 Ss • Event: simulate attending terrorist meeting • Small groups of Ss learn about strategic plan • Group leader provides background information, details about activities • Good vs. poor encoding • Good: information repeated, undivided attention • Poor: information presented once, multi-tasking • (cont’d)

8. Method (cont’d) • Interviews • Twice: T1 = 2 days; T2 = 1 week • Topics: Background, strategic information, others present • Good vs. poor interview • Good: open-ended Qs; emphasize accuracy • Poor: open + closed Qs; emphasize quantity • Tape-recorded interviews transcribed + coded for accuracy and consistency

9. Results (accuracy) • Research Question # 1: Which is more important: knowledge (encoding) or interviewing? • Fig. 1a: 2 x 2 (encoding x interview) • Coded for accuracy • The pattern: • Interviewingis more important than encoding • For good interview, good encoding = poor encoding • Only for bad interview is good encoding > poor encoding

10. Total Accuracy Interview #1

11. Results (contradictions) • Parallel to earlier analysis, but coded for contradictions • The pattern: • Interviewing is more important then encoding • Good encoding = poor encoding for good interview

12. Number of Contradictions

13. How does encoding influence recollection? • Quantity

14. Amount recalled

15. Courtroom Practice • Cross-examination strategy – to elicit errors or inconsistencies by baiting witness to answer low-confidence questions (lower metacognitivethreshhold) • Attorney argues that witness errors and inconsistencies reflects poor witness knowledge or memory

16. Relation between consistency and overall witness accuracy • Attorney’s “logic” re: inconsistency and accuracy; predict strong correlations • Data from the present and other studies show weak correlations

17. Conclusions • Primacy of metacognition (interviewing) • For accuracy, interviewing is more important than encoding • Good interviewing overcomes bad encoding (& also retention interval: Evans & Fisher, 2011)

18. Final Comment on Attorney Cross-examination Practices • Attorney tactics work effectively to convince jurors • Attorney arguments are not supported by empirical evidence • Jurors fall prey to attorney tactics, because they undervalue the role of metacognition and interviewing.

19. Questions? This work is funded by the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group / J-FBI-10-009 awarded to Ronald Fisher.  Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Government.