How Accurate Are Forensic Interviews

How Accurate Are Forensic Interviews - Author and reviewer affiliation is the last listing on Loop research profiles and may not reflect their status at the time of review.

Evaluating eyewitness accounts proved to be a difficult task. However, recent research shows that it is more difficult to retrieve false memories than correct ones, and that confidence in memory is based on retrieval effort. We aimed to replicate and extend these findings by adding retrieval latency as a predictor of memory accuracy. Participants watched a crime scene film and were interviewed about its content. We then analyzed evidence of research effort in witness responses. The results showed that false memories contained more effort cues than correct memories. Although correct responses were produced faster than incorrect responses, response latencies appeared to be a better predictor of accuracy than response latency. Furthermore, participants were more confident about correct responses than incorrect responses, and effort cues partially mediated this confidence-accuracy relationship. Overall, the results support previous findings regarding the relationship between memory accuracy and objectively verifiable cues to search effort.

How Accurate Are Forensic Interviews

How Accurate Are Forensic Interviews

Eyewitness reports are often an important source of information for investigating what happened during a criminal offense (Wells et al., 2006). Although eyewitness accounts play a central role in criminal investigations and decision-making, they are often unreliable and contribute significantly to wrongful convictions (Garrett, 2011; Innocence project, 2018). False eyewitness reports sometimes result from witnesses intentionally lying about the target event (see DePaulo et al., 2003; Sporer and Schwandt, 2006; Vrij et al., 2017). Perhaps less obvious, and another major source of eyewitness error, is when a witness is telling the truth but remembers something wrong. Although distinguishing between factually correct and false memories may be critical for valid judgments, research has shown that people have difficulty judging the accuracy of others memories (Lindholm, 2005, 2008a, b). Despite its importance to the judicial process, relatively little research has examined the extent to which false eyewitness memories may differ from accurate ones. This study attempts to understand potential differences between honestly reported correct and incorrect oral eyewitness accounts. We do this by replicating and extending the study of Lindholm et al. (2018), who found that memory accuracy was related to retrieval attempt scores in witness responses.

Why Some Forensic Evidence Isn’t Accurate Or Reliable

Although confidence in ones own memories is not a perfect measure of accuracy, research shows a consistent positive relationship between confident judgments and memory accuracy (e.g., Robinson & Johnson, 1996; Odinot & Walters, 2006; Wickstead & Wells , 2017). Reality monitoring (Johnson and Raye, 1981) and the use of cues (Koriat, 1997, 2006) are two main theories of how we make judgments about our own memories, that is, metamemory judgments. Both theories suggest that we rely on indirect cues (i.e., heuristics) to judge the accuracy of our memories, rather than direct access to memory strength (see Hart, 1965). Both theories have also inspired the development of methods for assessing the accuracy of others memories (e.g., Schooler et al., 1986; Sporer, 1997; Ackerman & Koriat, 2011). Reality monitoring theory (or source monitoring, Johnson et al., 1993) proposes that memories of real and imagined events differ on a set of features and that people rely on these differences when determining the source of their memory. According to the theory, real memories contain more contextual, sensory, and semantic information, while imagined memories contain more references to cognitive functions. Reality monitoring can also be based on prior knowledge and beliefs, such as evaluating the memory of a flying pig as imagined because of the knowledge that pigs cannot fly. Techniques using reality monitoring have been developed to distinguish real from imagined memories (e.g., Schooler et al., 1986), as well as truth tellers from liars (e.g., Sporer, 1997; Vrij , 2018). Because these methods are pattern-based on multiple evidence criteria (e.g., sensory, spatial, temporal information, clarity, etc.), they have been used primarily to determine the veracity of memories of entire events rather than individual details. from the event

Similar to reality monitoring, recall theory (Koriat, 1997, 2006) suggests that peoples judgments of their own memories can be based on knowledge and beliefs about how memory works (informational or theory-based). or to the experience gained during the search process (experience-based). Experience-based judgments are primarily concerned with the memory processes themselves, such as the ease with which the memory is retrieved, rather than, as in, actually attending to the content of the memory. While theoretical judgments in this context are seen as arising from the deliberate application of beliefs and theories about how memory works, experiential judgments are derived on a more automatic basis from cues during the retrieval process. These characteristics give rise to a sense of experience, by which the power of memory is judged. Thus, a memory that comes to mind quickly and easily will be perceived as a strong memory representation, and thus will be rated as more accurate than a memory that comes to mind more slowly.

Indeed, considerable evidence now supports the view that metamemory judgments such as confidence are highly dependent on the ease and probability with which the to-be-remembered item is retrieved. For example, Kelly and Lindsay (1993) showed that manipulating how easy a memory is to retrieve affects how certain a person is that the memory is correct. In their study, participants were presented with possible answers to general questions that were either correct, incorrect but relevant, or incorrect and irrelevant to the questions. When the participants later took a test with the same questions, they answered them faster and were more confident about the answers they had received earlier compared to the answers that had not been given. This was true regardless of whether the answer was correct or incorrect, indicating the critical role of ease of retrieval as a basis for their confident judgments.

The vast majority of research on eyewitness accuracy has focused on measuring and improving eyewitness identification accuracy, that is, the ability of witnesses to correctly identify the perpetrator in a group of suspects and suspects (see Wells et al., 2006). . In these studies of recognition judgments, the witnesss subjective confidence in his or her memory is the most widely investigated factor (for reviews, see Brewer and Weber, 2008; Roediger et al., 2012; Roediger and DeSoto, 2014; Wixted et al. ., 2015; Wixted and Wells, 2017). Although this has been debated for many years, the prevailing view is that there is a consistent positive, albeit not perfect, relationship between confidence and recognition accuracy (Wixted et al., 2015; Wixted and Wells, 2017; see Sporer et al., 1995; Juslin et al., 1996; Lindsay et al., 1998). Confidence is also of great interest in studies of eyewitness verbal memory, such as eyewitness accounts. Although the strength of the relationship between confidence and eyewitness recall accuracy varied somewhat across studies, the general trend is consistent and reflects the results of recognition studies. People are more confident that recalled memories are correct than incorrect (Robinson and Johnson, 1996; Robinson et al., 1997; Ibabe and Sporer, 2004; Odinot and Wolters, 2006; Odinot et al., 2009).

The Effects Of Initial Interview Quality, And Subsequent Witness Performance Alessandra Caso Professor Fiona Gabbert Dr. Gordon Wright.

As explained earlier, the cueing view assumes that confidence judgments do not derive directly from the strength of memories, but are based on internal (experience-based judgments) and external cues (information-based judgments) that are possibly related to memory. accuracy yattyu . However, if confidence is based on cues rather than the strength of memory itself, then cues may be more directly and validly related to memory accuracy than to confidence. Furthermore, although trust may be based on the indirect accuracy of conditions, it seems plausible that the evidence people rely on are not always the most accurate predictors. Thus, if cues to memory strength can be detected and measured, such cues may provide a better estimate of accuracy than confidence judgments.

One trait that has been shown to have both accuracy and confidence is response latency, which is the speed at which a memory is formed. As Kelly and Lindsay (1993) showed, people are more confident in fast responses than in slower verbal responses. The same results were obtained in the study by Robinson et al. (b. 1997), where participants answered questions about details from a video of a staged robbery. Higher confidence and shorter response latencies were found for correct responses and for judgments of verbal recall and recognition. The relationships between confidence, response latency, and accuracy demonstrated in these studies in the recall of episodic memories are consistent with the results of a number of studies of verbal information recognition (Koriat and Ackerman, 2010; Ackerman and Koriat, 2011), semantic memory recall. (Smith and Clark, 1993) as well as in eyewitness identification studies (e.g. Brewer et al., 2006; Weidemann and Kahana, 2016; see Brewer and Weber, 2008 for a review).

Given the evidence that memory accuracy is related to ease of retrieval, as measured by response latency, other indicators of the ease with which memory

How Accurate Are Forensic Interviews

How accurate are thyroid tests, how accurate are psychic readings, how accurate are ovulation tests, how accurate are 3d mammograms, how accurate is forensic dna testing, how accurate are psychics, how accurate is forensic facial reconstruction, how accurate are std tests, how accurate are zillow estimates, anatomical dolls forensic interviews, how accurate are golf simulators, how accurate are allergy tests

Leave a Comment