is the cognitive interview efficient on very young children's ability to testify about an...
TRANSCRIPT
Is the cognitive interview efficient on veryyoung children's ability to testify about an
occurrence of a repeated event?
Fanny Verkampt, Cindy Colomb, & Magali Ginet
Clermont Université, Université Blaise PascalLaboratoire de Psychologie Sociale et Cognitive (CNRS UMR 6024)
BP 10448, F-63000 Clermont-Ferrand, France
3rd Annual iIIRG Conference 2010 - Stavern (Norway)
Children as eyewitnesses
Odas (National center for social decentralized action)(2001)
Free recall
- often accurate
- few detailed information
- generally focused on central elements
Questions
- more specific information
- less accurate
Suggestibility
Assaults often repeated 60%, perpetrator = family member 46%, perpetrator = child’s father
Children’s testimonies = the sole available source of information
Children victims of physical and/or sexual violences 41% under 11 years old 29% under 6 years old
Odas (National center for social decentralized action)(2007)
3rd Annual iIIRG Conference 2010 - Stavern (Norway)
Age differences in eyewitness memory (e.g., 4-5 vs. 9-10 years old)
Children as eyewitnessesin
put
Encoding Storage RetrievalRecall/
communication
•Less capacity•Less capacity
•Less efficient and sophisticated strategies
•Poor memory organisation (story grammar)
•Less efficient and sophisticated strategies
•Poor memory organisation (story grammar)
•Limited duration•Limited duration
•Limited vocabulary
•Worse understanding of the situation
•Conversational script unsuitable for II
•Limited vocabulary
•Worse understanding of the situation
•Conversational script unsuitable for II
3rd Annual iIIRG Conference 2010 - Stavern (Norway)
Age differences in eyewitness memory (e.g., 4-5 vs. 9-10 years-old)
Children as eyewitnessesin
put
Encoding Storage RetrievalRecall/
communication
•Less capacity•Less capacity
•Less efficient and sophisticated strategies
•Poor memory organisation (story grammar)
•Less efficient and sophisticated strategies
•Poor memory organisation (story grammar)
•Limited duration•Limited duration
•Limited vocabulary
•Worse understanding of the situation
•Conversational script unsuitable for II
•Limited vocabulary
•Worse understanding of the situation
•Conversational script unsuitable for II
3rd Annual iIIRG Conference 2010 - Stavern (Norway)
Investigative Interviews Framework – The particularity of the Cognitive Interview
RetrievalRecall/
communication Phased (funnel) approach:
1.Rapport-building •Establishing rapport •Explaining conversational rules
2. Free recall
3. Questioning
4. Closure
Phased (funnel) approach:
1.Rapport-building •Establishing rapport •Explaining conversational rules
2. Free recall
3. Questioning
4. Closure
Cognitive Interview with children (Geiselman & Padilla, 1988; Saywitz, Geiselman, & Bornstein, 1992)
Mnemonics (cognitive instructions)
1.Mental context reinstatement •Physical surrounding •Internal state
2. Report everything
3. Reverse order
4. Change of perspective
Mnemonics (cognitive instructions)
1.Mental context reinstatement •Physical surrounding •Internal state
2. Report everything
3. Reverse order
4. Change of perspective
3rd Annual iIIRG Conference 2010 - Stavern (Norway)
RetrievalRecall/
communicationMnemonics (cognitive instructions)
1.Mental context reinstatement •Physical surrounding •Internal state
2. Report everything
3. Reverse order
4. Change of perspective
Mnemonics (cognitive instructions)
1.Mental context reinstatement •Physical surrounding •Internal state
2. Report everything
3. Reverse order
4. Change of perspective
Phased (funnel) approach:
1.Rapport-building •Establishing rapport •Explaining conversational rules
2. Free recall
3. Questioning
4. Closure
Phased (funnel) approach:
1.Rapport-building •Establishing rapport •Explaining conversational rules
2. Free recall
3. Questioning
4. Closure
FREE RECALL
21% to 27% correct information(Holliday, 2003b; Geiselman & Padilla, 1988)
specific information (location, person, object, action) (e.g., Holliday, 2003a, 2003b)
QUESTIONING
suggestibility to misleading questions(e.g., Memon, Holley, Wark, Bull, & Köhnkenn 1996a; Milne, Bull, Köhnken, & Memon, 1995)
Benefits of the CI
Investigative Interviews Framework – The particularity of the Cognitive Interview
3rd Annual iIIRG Conference 2010 - Stavern (Norway)
RetrievalRecall/
communicationMnemonics (cognitive instructions)
1.Mental context reinstatement •Physical surrounding •Internal state
2. Report everything
3. Cued Recall (i.e., “What happened right after that?” )
Mnemonics (cognitive instructions)
1.Mental context reinstatement •Physical surrounding •Internal state
2. Report everything
3. Cued Recall (i.e., “What happened right after that?” )
Phased (funnel) approach:
1.Rapport-building •Establishing rapport •Explaining conversational rules
2. Free recall
3. Questioning
4. Closure
Phased (funnel) approach:
1.Rapport-building •Establishing rapport •Explaining conversational rules
2. Free recall
3. Questioning
4. Closure
FREE RECALL
57 % to 80% correct information(Verkampt & Ginet, 2009, study 1 & 2)
specific information (location, person, object, action) (Verkampt & Ginet, 2009, study 2)
QUESTIONING
suggestibility to misleading questions(Verkampt & Ginet, 2009)
Benefits of the CI
Investigative Interviews Framework – The particularity of the Cognitive Interview
3rd Annual iIIRG Conference 2010 - Stavern (Norway)
Repetition of events and children’s recall
S.D., young girl of 8 years old
Mixture of both general script information and particular specific details
- Fixed details = details that are similar across episodes (e.g., my daddy hurt me)
- Variations = details that vary across episodes - Details may vary at each episode Recurring variations (e.g.,
child’s activity before the violences) - Details may vary only once Unique variation (e.g., taking
pictures)
3rd Annual iIIRG Conference 2010 - Stavern (Norway)
" Because my daddy hurt me … touched me where he should not. I don’t remember which day, I don’t know… in my mom’s house, in our bedroom, he came in the morning, we were in two beds, he has also hurt K. where he should not. He undressed me, put his willy in my flower. It hurt. I don’t remember ... but several times.
Free Recall
Failure to describe a specific/target occurrence (Pearse, Powell, & Thomson, 2003; Price & Connolly, 2007)
Recall focused on fixed details (vs. variations) (see Roberts & Powell, 2001, for a detailed overview)
Many confusions (e.g., Powell, Roberts, Ceci, & Hembrooke, 1999; Price & Connolly, 2004, 2007) = details from nontarget occurrence recalled as having occured in the target one
Questioning (e.g., Connolly & Lindsay, 2001 ; Price & Connolly, 2004)
resistance to the misleading questions about fixed details suggestibility to the misleading questions about variations
3rd Annual iIIRG Conference 2010 - Stavern (Norway)
Repetition of events and children’s recall
Cognitive Interview used with children testifying about an occurrence of a repeated
event
Population 64 children (31 girls and 33 boys), aged 4-5 years old (M = 4.8
years old ; range = 4 years old and one month to 5 years old and 7 months)
Procedure Encoding phase: participation to a painting session once (no
repetition condition) or four times (repetition condition) Interview phase: MCI or SI
Correct information, incorrect information, confabulations, confusions Accuracy rate (correct information/total of reported information) Fixes details, recurring variations, & unique variations Answers to misleading (msled, not misled) and leading (led, not led)
questions
3rd Annual iIIRG Conference 2010 - Stavern (Norway)
Procedure – Encoding (Phase 1)
Repetition condition
Session 1
Session 2
Session 3
Session 4
Fixed detailsPlaster on the nose
Plaster on the nose
Plaster on the nose
Plaster on the nose
Recurring variations
Head HipArm Neck
Uniquevariations
Green apron
Green apron
Green apron
White apron
3rd Annual iIIRG Conference 2010 - Stavern (Norway)
Cognitive Interview used with children testifying about an occurrence of a repeated
event
Procedure – Encoding (Phase 1)
No Repetition condition
Session 1
Session 2
Session 3
Session 4
Fixed detailsPlaster on the nose
Plaster on the nose
Plaster on the nose
Plaster on the nose
Recurring variations
Head HipArm Neck
Uniquevariations
Green apron
Green apron
Green apron
White apron
3rd Annual iIIRG Conference 2010 - Stavern (Norway)
Cognitive Interview used with children testifying about an occurrence of a repeated
event
Procedure – Encoding (Phase 1)
No Repetition condition
Session 1
Session 2
Session 3
Session 4
Fixed detailsPlaster on the nose
Plaster on the nose
Plaster on the nose
Plaster on the nose
Recurring variations
Head HipArm Neck
Uniquevariations
Green apron
Green apron
Green apron
White apron
3rd Annual iIIRG Conference 2010 - Stavern (Norway)
Cognitive Interview used with children testifying about an occurrence of a repeated
event
Procedure – Interview (Phase 2)
1. Rapport-building
2. Free recall
1st FR
2nd FR
3. Questioning
4. Closure
1. Rapport-building
2. Free recall
1st FR
2nd FR
3. Questioning
4. Closure
Modified Cognitive Interview
Structured Interview
✓ ✓
Context reinstatementReport everything
Cued Recall
✓ ✓
✓ ✓
Neutral instruction
Neutral instruction
3rd Annual iIIRG Conference 2010 - Stavern (Norway)
Cognitive Interview used with children testifying about an occurrence of a repeated
event
Results: Free Recalls
Means
♯ C
orr
ect
in
form
ati
on
**
Z = -3.325, p < .008
3rd Annual iIIRG Conference 2010 - Stavern (Norway)
Cognitive Interview used with children testifying about an occurrence of a repeated
event
Results: Free Recalls
3rd Annual iIIRG Conference 2010 - Stavern (Norway)
Means
♯ C
orr
ect
in
form
ati
on
Z = -1.725, n.s
+ 42%
Z = -3.229, p < .008
+113%
Cognitive Interview used with children testifying about an occurrence of a repeated
event
Mean number (and standard deviation) of fixed details (out of 4), unique variations (out of 4) and recurrent variations (out of 4) recalled by repetition and interview
3rd Annual iIIRG Conference 2010 - Stavern (Norway)
Cognitive Interview used with children testifying about an occurrence of a repeated
event
CI SI
No repetition
Repetition No repetition
Repetition Sign.
Fixed details 1.05 (0.78) 1.91 (1.37) 1.33 (0.98) 0.68 (1.17) **
Unique variation 0.05 (0.23) 0.82 (0.87) 0.00 (0.00) 0.36 (0.95)
**
Recurring variation 0.00 (0.00) 0.64 (1.21) 0.00 (0.00) 0.14 (0.35)
*
* p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001
Mean number (and standard deviation) of fixed details (out of 4), unique variations (out of 4) and recurrent variations (out of 4) recalled by repetition and interview
3rd Annual iIIRG Conference 2010 - Stavern (Norway)
Cognitive Interview used with children testifying about an occurrence of a repeated
event
CI SI
No repetition
Repetition No repetition
Repetition Sign.
Fixed details 1.05 (0.78) 1.91 (1.37) 1.33 (0.98) 0.68 (1.17) **
Unique variation 0.05 (0.23) 0.82 (0.87) 0.00 (0.00) 0.36 (0.95)
**
Recurring variation 0.00 (0.00) 0.64 (1.21) 0.00 (0.00) 0.14 (0.35)
*
* p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001
Results: Questioning and children’s suggestibility
3rd Annual iIIRG Conference 2010 - Stavern (Norway)
Cognitive Interview used with children testifying about an occurrence of a repeated
event
Means
♯ of
« n
o »
answ
ers
(out
of
6)
Z = -2.405, p < .016
Z = -3.546, p < .008
**
A first step towards the use of the CI for some repeated events
Benefits of the (modified) CI for children in repetition condition: Improvement of correct information Without any decline in statements’ accuracy Improvement of reported fixed details but no effect on variations Stronger resistance to adult’s influences « nay-saying bias » (e.g., Fritzley
& Lee, 2003)
… for children in no repetition condition: no benefit of the (modified) CI
3rd Annual iIIRG Conference 2010 - Stavern (Norway)
Discussion & Conclusion
Need to work with a more emotional event target More naturalistic event
Need to test the relevance of a break because the free recall and questioning phases (cf. “nay-saying bias”): CI may be demanding and resource-dependent technique particularly for
children in repetition condition Nay-saying bias = way for children to indicate that they want to stop the
interview
3rd Annual iIIRG Conference 2010 - Stavern (Norway)
Discussion & Conclusion