The Interview Process - Assignment Example

The interview process undertaken by the interviewer had several weak points which could have resulted in loss of witness information or distorted presentation of facts by the witness. It is proposed that in the case of child witness, an essential aspect of the interviewer process is to in the confidence of the child and enable the child to trust the interviewer (Memon, Meissner and Fraser, 2010). Some ways of building trust and confidence involve being polite and friendly and making the child comfortable in your presence. In the case of the example, the interviewer arrived at the witness’ home and knocked very loudly which gave the impression that he was aggressive. This leads to intimidation of the witness which in turn could lead to the witness being scared while answering the questions. Another problem that occurred where related to the approach that the interviewer took during the interview. He was very direct and used loud voice. This made the child fearful and timid and he hesitated in giving detailed answers. The interviewer repeated his questions several times and intimidated the child who could have felt that he is the person who has done something to anger the interviewer. Under the circumstances there is a significant chance that the child would not be able to recall the events correctly. This is because the human memory operates in a typical manner and recall is affected by a variety of factors (Paterson, Kemp and Ng, 2011). These factors include the problems associated with the process of encoding that occurs during the event that was witnessed and also with the retrieval of the event (Ternes and Yuille, 2008). The encoding process is already in the past and there is little that can be done to ensure that the witness encoded the event in an accurate manner. Nevertheless an understanding of the ways in which encoding can be faulty is necessary for the crime investigators to understand and watch out for (Phelps, 2004). However, the process of retrieval occurs during the investigation or the witness interview, and interviewers need to be trained to facilitate the process (Smith and Vela, 1992). It is expected that witnesses of violent crimes or witnesses who are also the victims of the violent crime or sexual abuse, may be suffering from stress which leads to the repression of the memory (Pozzulo, 2007). It is also possible that the witness may have adopted a coping mechanism of dissociating himself or herself from the scene, in which case again the memory may not be easily retrieved (Turtle and Want, 2008). Witness may also suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder that inhibits the witnesses from recalling explicit memory details (Verkampt and Ginet, 2010). In addition to the above factors, research has also found that retrieval of memory is affected by what is called the mood-congruency. This means that the witness may recall an event more vividly if at the time of witness interview the same ‘mood’ or ‘atmosphere’ is recreated. However, researchers warn against creating excessive stress for the witness (in a bid to recreate the stress that he may have undergone during the event). Instead, it is postulated that by asking the witness to talk about his or her feelings and thoughts during the time leading up to the scene may encourage better retrieval of the actual scene (Memon et al, 2010). It is also possible to recreate the feelings, mood and emotions associated with the crime by conducting interview in a similar setting as the crime (MacLeod, 2002). In the case of the sample interviews, the interviewer selected the kitchen as the setting of the interview with the child, which was not only inappropriate as it made the interview intimate and may have further scared the child. It is therefore seen that witness memory is a complex issue and needs to be treated with due care. There are many activities and instances that can lead to false reconstruction of the crime event. As was seen in the sample interview case, there were many mistakes that the interviewer committed which could lead to memory retrieval problems. The level of stress that he induced by his boisterous attitude – knocking loudly, barging in, using loud voice, repeating questions – could lead to the child’s actually blocking the memory of the crime that he may have witnessed. According to research, a small amount of stress leads to arousal and hence better recall, but in case of high stress levels, and high release of corticosteroids may impact on the functioning of the hippocampus, the part of the brain associated with memory (Joseph, 1998; Ma and Ganea, 2010). The problem is further aggravated in the case of children and other vulnerable witnesses. In the case of children, there is a more potent impact of stress on the memory of children. This is because due to the brain immaturity and enhanced plasticity of brain during childhood, memory loss is very common among children (Krackow and Lynn, 2010). In addition, children are often not knowledgeable about the context of the crime and may not be able to recall it when asked to. For example, if the child is as yet unaware of how poison can lead to death, they may not link an act of poisoning to crime. Also, children are often limited by their vocabulary, which can prevent them from recounting the events in an articulate manner (Henry and Gudjonsson, 2007). Research has also found that children are susceptible to significant others’ opinions and may change their account of an event so that it conforms to what others are saying (Gordon et al, 2001). Finally, there has been considerable research on how the people present during the interview can impact on the testimony of a child witness (Gilbert and Fisher, 2006). It is found that children may have a desire to please the officer or to appear intelligent and hence they may agree with whatever they believe the officer wants them to say (Fivush and Schwarzmueller, 1999). As such, it is essential that the officials involved in taking the interview of child witness do not give away leading questions or hints that could impact the recall of events provided by the child. The various memory related issues that can potentially occur during witnesses recounting of the crime events have led to the support for using cognitive interviews which can aid in the accurate retrieval of information. The cognitive approach is grounded in the theoretical rules of memory, learning and forgetting (Clevelend and Reese, 2008). This approach entails that the witness is provided with an opportunity to reinstate the environmental and personal contexts related to the event. For this, the witness is encouraged to remember and form a mental picture of the actual setting as well as of the actual feelings that he was feeling during the event that he or she witnessed. This lays the ground for better recall and facilitates the in-depth and complete narration of the event that the investigator encourages the witness to give. Next, the witness is asked to describe events from different perspectives –from the perspective of the perpetrator, from the perspective of the victim, and from the perspective of any other person who was present on the scene (Chan, Thomas, Bulevich, 2009). The narrative can also be given in different orders, using different starting points in different points that can help the witness to go to and fro and gain better insights about what he or she witnessed. While the above techniques need to be modified when used with children and young adolescents, research has established the utility of using cognitive interviews with children ( Brewer and Wells, 2011) Modified versions of cognitive interviews have been found to reduce the suggestibility of children and enhance their recall of the event in minute details (Brady and Konkle, 2008) In addition to the above techniques used in the cognitive behaviour interviews, it is also postulated that the interviewer and the witness need to establish a relationship of trust and comfort at the onset. This is especially relevant in the case of child witness where the child may already feel fearful or intimidated by the attention that he or she is getting as a victim or a witness (Bailenson and Davies, 2008). In the sample case interview, the interviewer had shown a complete disregard for the need to establish a healthy, trusting and accusation free environment before starting with the interview. The inability to take an appointment and the deliberate choice of time to coincide with the child being alone at home, are indications of the faulty approach and wrong attitude of the interviewer. It is to guard against such mistakes that best practices like PEACE (Preparation and Planning; Engage and Explain; Account, Clarify and Challenge; Closure; Evaluation) are recommended (Ask and Granhag, 2010). This best practice entails that the interviewer be well prepared with the right attitude and approach as well as with the right methods to gauge information. PEACE suggests that the interviewer conduct an interview in a non-accusatory manner (which, in the case of the sample interview, was not done) and that he or she explain and clarify things and encourage the witness to give the information in a relaxed atmosphere. In addition, it is also recommended that with interviews with children, recording is to be undertaken to spare the child witness from repeated interviews (Brewer and Wells, 2011). Also, recording ensures that the first information provided by the child witness is available to cross-check in case the child’s memory is distorted or he is suggestible during the follow-up investigations. This again was not taken care of by the interviewer in the sample interview, as the interviewer did not take any papers or any other recording material with him. What could have been construed as a good interview involving a child witness should have included detailed planning by the interviewer even before he embarked on the task. By taking a prior appointment and ensuring that the child was aware that he will be interviewed alone in the absence of his parents, the interviewer could have given the child time to prepare himself to face the interview. Next, on approaching the child the interviewer should have toned down his behaviour to exhibit discipline but kindness and trust also. The interview need to have started on a friendly note, encouraging the child to begin talking about the routine things that he was comfortable with. Creating a friendly and non-accusatory atmosphere is part of the best practices provided by PEACE (Brewer and Wells, 2011), and could have been employed with success in the sample case. Next, the choice of setting could have been made more suitable as the room of the child or the living room, where the child may feel more relaxed and less pressurized to reveal his inner thoughts and feelings. The interviewer needed to ensure that the child is not under stress and this could have been further achieved by not asking direct questions. As seen from the literature on cognitive interviewing techniques, a direct question is not suitable for accurate recall of the event, especially in the case of child witness (Clevelend and Reese, 2008). The interviewer needs to have encouraged the child to simply narrate the account or describe his feelings during the event. This could have given the interviewer a chance to hear the total and comprehensive account of the event from the perspective of the child (Gilbert and Fisher, 2006). In addition, the interviewer could have used a modified version of the cognitive interview technique of changing the perspectives by encouraging the child to assume that he was in the ‘body’ of someone else (the perpetrator or other witnesses) and then narrate what he thought that other body was witnessed. Such techniques could have encouraged the child to role play and recall more accurately what he may have missed when he was narrating his own perspective. Throughout the interview, the interviewer should have remained calm and maintained an even yet sympathetic tone. Finally, the interviewer should have recorded either on paper or using a tape recorder, the entire process of the interview. This could have been useful to establish the state of mind of the child witness and also could have served as recorded evidence in case the child gets influenced by parents or others and changes his perception of the crime with the passage of time. By following the above best practices, the interviewer could have ensured that the child was interviewed in an environment and a contextual setting that could have aided his recall better. References Ask, K., Granhag, P. 2010. Perception of Line-up Suggestiveness: Effects of Identification Oucome Knowledge. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 7(3), p.213–229 Bailenson, J, & Davies , A. 2008. The effects of witness viewpoint distance, angle, and choice on eyewitness accuracy in police lineups conducted in immersive virtual environments. PRESENCE, 17(3), p.242-255. Brady, T, & Konkle, T. 2008. Visual long-term memory has a massive storage capacity for object details. PNAS, 103(38), p.14325–14329. Brewer, N., Wells, G. 2011. Eyewitness identification. Current Directions in Psychological Science 20(1), p.24–27. Chan, J. C. K.; Thomas, A. K., & Bulevich, J. B. 2009. Recalling a witness increases eyewitness suggestibility. Association of Psychological Science, 20(1), p.66 – 72. Clevelend, E. and Reese, E. 2008. Children Remember Early Childhood: Long-term recall across the offset of childhood amnesia. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22 (1), p.127-142. Fivush, R., Schwarzmueller, A. 1999. Children remember childhood: implications for childhood amnesia. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 12(5), p.455–473. Gilbert, A. A. E., and Fisher, R. P. 2006. The effects of varied cues on reminiscence in eyewitness memory. Applied cognitive Psychology, 20(6), p.723-739. Gordon, B. N., Baker-Ward, L., & Ornstein, P. A. 2001. Childrens Testimony: A review on research of memory for past experiences. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 4(2), p.157-181. Henry, L., Gudjonsson, G. 2007. Individual and developmental differences in eyewitness recall and suggestibility in children with intellectual disabilities. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21(3), p.361–381. Joseph, R. 1998. Traumatic amnesia, repression, and hippocampus injury due to emotional stress, corticosteroids, and enkephalins. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 29(2), p.169 – 179 Krackow, E., and Lynn, S. J. 2010. Event report training: An examination of the efficacy of a new intervention to improve children’s eyewitness reports. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24, p.868-884 Ma, L., & Ganea, P. A. 2010. Dealing with conflicting information: Young childrens reliance on what they see versus what they are told. Developmental Science, 13(1), p.151 – 160. MacLeod, M. 2002. Retrieval-induced forgetting in eyewitness memory: forgetting as a consequence of remembering. Applied cognitive Psychology, 16(2), p.35-149. Memon, A., Meissner, C. A., & Fraser, J. 2010. The cognitive interview: A meta-analytic review and study space analysis of the past 25 years. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 16(4), p.340-372. Memon. A., Zaragoza, M., Clifford, B. R., and Kidd, L. 2010. Inoculation or antidote? The effects of cognitive interview timing on false memory for forcibly fabricated events.Law Human Behavior, 34, p.105-117. Paterson, H, M., Kemp, R., and Ng, J. 2011. Combating Co-Witness Contamination: Attempting to Decrease the Negative Effects of Discussion on Eyewitness Memory. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25(5), p.43–52. Phelps, E. 2004. Human emotion and memory: Interactions of the amygdala and hippocampal complex. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 14(2), p.198-202. Pozzulo, J. 2007. What the little eye spied: The dos and donts of interviewing children .Royal Canadian Mounted Police Gazette, 69(1), p.20–21. Smith , S, & Vela, E. 1992. Environmental context-dependent eyewitness recognition. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 6(2), p.125 -139. Ternes, M., Yuille, J. 2008. Eyewitness memory and eyewitness identification performance in adults with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 21(6), p.519–531. Turtle, J.; Want, S. C. 2008. Logic and Research Versus Intuition and Past Practice as Guides to Gathering and Evaluating Eyewitness Evidence. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35(10), p.1241–1256. Verkampt, F., and Ginet, M. (2010). Variations of the cognitive interview: Which one is the most effective in enhancing children’s testimonies? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24, (10) p.1279-1296. Read More