Annelies Vredeveldt

Eyeclosure helps memory by reducing cognitive load and enhancing visualisation

Closing the eyes helps memory. We investigated the mechanisms underlying the eyeclosure effect by exposing 80 eyewitnesses to different types of distraction during the witness interview: blank screen (control), eyes closed, visual distraction, and auditory distraction. We examined the cognitive load hypothesis by comparing any type of distraction (visual or auditory) with minimal distraction (blank screen or eyes closed). We found recall to be significantly better when distraction was minimal, providing evidence that eyeclosure reduces cognitive load. We examined the modality-specific interference hypothesis by comparing the effects of visual and auditory distraction on recall of visual and auditory information. Visual and auditory distraction selectively impaired memory for information presented in the same modality, supporting the role of visualisation in the eyeclosure effect. Analysis of recall in terms of grain size revealed that recall of basic information about the event was robust, whereas recall of specific details was prone to both general and modality-specific disruptions.

The Inconsistent Suspect: A Systematic Review of Different Types of Consistency in Truth Tellers and Liars

Many people believe that inconsistency is a sign of lying, and that consistency is a sign of truth telling. The present chapter assesses the validity of these popular beliefs. We review the literature on the relationship between consistency and deception, and present an overview of effect sizes obtained in studies on this topic. Four different types of consistency are explored, namely: within-statement consistency, between-statement consistency, within-group consistency, and statement-evidence consistency. We also discuss three interview approaches designed to amplify differences between liars and truth tellers—the unanticipated-question approach, the cognitive-load approach, and the Strategic Use of Evidence technique—and examine their impact on different types of consistency. Finally, we identify limitations and gaps in the literature and provide directions for future research.

Eye-closure improves memory for a witnessed event under naturalistic conditions

Eye-closure may help people remember live and videotaped mundane events and videotaped violent events. The present study extended this research by examining memory for a forensically relevant live event (a staged verbal altercation) and by interviewing witnesses under naturalistic conditions. Ninety-six witnesses were interviewed either inside in a quiet setting or outside on a busy street, with eyes open or closed. In free recall, eye-closure significantly increased the number of correct details reported, without harming testimonial accuracy. These benefits were significant for witnesses interviewed inside but not for witnesses interviewed outside. This finding highlights the potential role of spontaneous mental context reinstatement in the eye-closure effect. In cued recall, eye-closure improved fine-grain correct recall of visual details for both groups of witnesses. From an applied perspective, the findings suggest that police interviewers should instruct witnesses to close their eyes, both during initial statements taken on the street and during full interviews conducted at the police station.

Eye-closure increases children's memory accuracy for visual material

Research shows that closing the eyes during retrieval can help both adults and children to remember more about witnessed events. In this study, we investigated whether the eye-closure effect in children is explained by general cognitive load, modality-specific interference, or a combination. 120 children (60 female) aged between 8 and 11 years viewed a 5-min clip depicting a theft and were questioned about the event. During the cued-recall interview, children either viewed a blank screen (blank-screen condition), kept their eyes closed (eye-closure condition), were exposed to visual stimuli (visual-distraction condition), or were exposed to auditory stimuli (auditory-distraction condition). Children in the blank-screen and eye-closure conditions provided significantly more correct and fewer incorrect responses about visual details than children in the visual- and auditory-distraction conditions. No advantage was found for auditory details. These results support neither a pure cognitive-load explanation (in which the effect is expected to be observed for recall of both visual and auditory details), nor a pure modality-specific account (in which recall of visual details should only be disrupted by visual distractions). Practical implications of the findings are discussed.

Acknowledge, repeat, rephrase, elaborate: Witnesses can help each other remember more

Crimes are often observed by multiple witnesses. Research shows that witnesses can contaminate each others memory, but potential benefits of co-witness discussion have not yet been investigated. We examined whether witnesses can help each other remember, or prune each others errors. In a research design with high ecological validity, attendees of a theatre play were interviewed approximately one week later about a violent scene in the play. The couples that signed up for our study had known each other for 31 years on average. Participants were first interviewed individually and then took part in a collaborative interview. We also included a control condition in which participants took part in two individual interviews. Collaboration did not help witnesses to remember more about the scene, but collaborative pairs made significantly fewer errors than nominal pairs. Further, quantitative and qualitative analyses of retrieval strategies during the discussion revealed that couples who actively acknowledged, repeated, rephrased, and elaborated upon each others statements remembered significantly more information overall. Taken together, our findings suggest that, under certain circumstances, discussion between witnesses is not such a bad idea after all.

When discussion between eyewitnesses helps memory

PurposePolice interviewers are typically instructed to prevent eyewitnesses from talking to each other, because witnesses can contaminate each others memory. Previous research has not fully examined, however, how discussion between witnesses affects correct and incorrect recall of witnessed events. We conducted quantitative and qualitative analyses to explore the influence of co-witness discussion in more detail.MethodsWitnesses were interviewed individually or in pairs about a videotaped violent event. We conducted individual interviews prior to collaboration (to obtain an independent record of what individuals remembered) and after collaboration (to assess whether collaboration subsequently triggered new memories).ResultsPairs that were interviewed together (collaborative pairs) remembered just as much correct information overall as pairs interviewed individually (nominal pairs), but collaborative pairs made significantly fewer errors. We found evidence of retrieval disruption during the discussion (i.e., collaborative pairs omitted significantly more old information during the second interview than nominal pairs) but also of a delayed cross-cuing effect (i.e., collaborative pairs reported significantly more new information in the final interview than nominal pairs). Pairs who used more content-focused retrieval strategies during the discussion (acknowledgements, repetitions, restatements, and elaborations) reported significantly more information.ConclusionsThe current findings suggest that, under certain conditions, discussion between eyewitnesses can help rather than hurt memory. Theoretical and practical implications will be discussed.

A field evaluation of the Eye-Closure Interview with witnesses of serious crimes

Laboratory research shows that eye-closure during memory retrieval improves both the amount and the factual accuracy of memory reports about witnessed events. Based on these findings, we developed the Eye-Closure Interview, and examined its feasibility (in terms of compliance with the instructions) and effectiveness (in terms of the quantity and quality of reported information) in eyewitness interviews conducted by the South African Police Service. Police interviewers from the Facial Identification Unit were randomly assigned to receive Eye-Closure Interview training or no training. We analyzed 95 interviews with witnesses of serious crimes (including robbery, rape, and murder), some of whom were instructed to close their eyes during salient parts of the interview. Witnesses in the control condition rarely spontaneously closed their eyes, but witnesses in the Eye-Closure Interview condition kept their eyes closed during 97% of their descriptions, suggesting that the Eye-Closure Interview would be easy to implement in a field setting. Although witnesses who closed their eyes did not remember more information overall, the information they provided was considered to be of significantly greater forensic relevance (as reflected in 2 independent blind assessments, 1 by a senior police expert and 1 by a senior researcher). Thus, based on the findings from this field study and from previous laboratory research, we conclude that implementation of the Eye-Closure Interview in witness interviews would help police interviewers to elicit more valuable information from witnesses, which could be relevant to the police investigation and/or in court. (PsycINFO Database Record

Reduction of environmental distraction to facilitate cognitive performance

Imagine explaining a statistics problem to a student while your colleague at the back of the room is frantically waving to get your attention. Or imagine reporting to a police officer on the street what happened during a witnessed mugging, while seeing traffic buzz by and hearing snippets of conversations from passers-by. Environmental distractions can have an impact on cognitive performance, whether this concerns solving a mathematical problem, maintaining a conversation, or retrieving an experienced event from memory. Glenberg et al. (1998) were the first to systematically explore the relationship between memory, environmental distraction, and behavioral control of distraction through gaze aversion and eye-closure. In a series of experiments, they found that people are more likely to avert their gaze when trying to answer more difficult questions about general and autobiographical information. Moreover, they found that instructed eye-closure resulted in better performance on a word recall task, whereas watching a silent movie resulted in poorer performance. Inspired by this work, Wagstaff et al. (2004) and Perfect et al. (2008) examined whether instructed eye-closure could also improve recall of events. In a series of studies, they found that eye-closure substantially improved the amount and accuracy of information reported about witnessed events.

Observing offenders: Incident reports by surveillance detectives, uniformed police, and civilians

Purpose Police officers often write reports about witnessed incidents, which may serve as evidence in court. We examined whether incident reports and identifications by police officers, and in particular specialized detectives on surveillance teams, are more complete or more accurate than reports and identifications by civilian observers. Methods Our sample included 46 civilians, 52 uniformed police officers, and 42 surveillance detectives. Participants viewed a 15-min video of a drug transaction and were allowed to take notes while watching. Before viewing the video, all participants received a priority list of information considered most relevant to the police investigation, which had been constructed by an expert panel. Subsequently, participants completed a questionnaire addressing different types of crime-relevant information in the incident. They also viewed target-present and target-absent lineups: Two for persons central to the drug transaction and one for a background detail. Results Reports of uniformed police officers and detectives on surveillance teams were significantly more complete than reports of civilians, particularly for the top-three priorities of crime-relevant information. Moreover, reports by detectives were significantly more accurate than reports by uniformed police officers and civilians. Detectives were also significantly more likely to identify the persons from the lineup, whereas civilians were significantly more likely to identify the background detail. Conclusions Our findings demonstrate that police officers, and in particular specialized detectives on surveillance teams, are more observant of the crime-relevant aspects of an incident than civilian observers. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

Recounting a Common Experience: On the Effectiveness of Instructing Eyewitness Pairs

Pairs of eyewitnesses with a content-focused interaction style remember significantly more about witnessed incidents. We examined whether content-focused retrieval strategies can be taught. Seventy-five pairs of witnesses were interviewed thrice about an event. The first and third interview were conducted individually for all witnesses. The second interview was individual, collaborative without instruction, or collaborative with instruction. Pairs in the latter condition were instructed to actively listen to and elaborate upon each others contributions. The strategy instruction had no effect on retrieval strategies used, nor on the amount or accuracy of reported information. However, pairs who spontaneously adopted a content-focused interaction style during the collaborative interview remembered significantly more. Thus, our findings show that effective retrieval strategies cannot be taught, at least not with the current instructions. During the second interview, we observed collaborative inhibition and error pruning. When considering the total amount of information reported across the first two interviews, however, collaboration had no inhibitory effect on correct recall, yet the error pruning benefits remained. These findings suggest that investigative interviewers should interview witnesses separately first, and then interview pairs of witnesses collaboratively.