ptvnt nfrtn nd tn ttn 1 rnnn hd: ptvnt nfrtn nd tn ttn ttn dnn...

Post-event Information and Eyewitness Testimony1

Running Head: Post-event Information and Eyewitness Testimony

The Effect of Post-event Information on Accuracy and Reliability of EyewitnessTestimony

Dianna M. Dawe

Algoma University College


Mistaken eyewitness identification has long been a difficulty within the legal

system (Hartwig, Granhag, & Vrij, 2005). It is frequently associated with the accuracy of

detail provided in eyewitness statements. Accuracy of detail in eyewitness testimony can

be described as an eyewitness's capacity to correctly describe the people, things, or

events that are essential in a criminal matter.

Testimony can be unreliable for a variety of reasons, including the effect of post-

event information (Baxter, Boon & Marley, 2006; Baxter, Jackson & Bain, 2003; Bain &

Baxter, 2000); Gabbert, Memon & Allen, 2003; Itsukushima, Nishi, Maruyama

&Takahashi, 2006; Lindsay, 1990; Shaw, Garven & Wood, 1997; Wright, Mathews &

Skagerberg, 2005; Zaragoza & Lane, 1994). Post-event information refers to any type of

information presented subsequent to an event (Gabbert et al., 2003). For example, it can

be introduced in police interrogations or through the presentation of misinformation.

Research on suggestibility indicates that post-event information can alter a

person's memory for detail or affect his/her comfort in reporting information. Typically,

studies examining the effect of post-event information have focused on a phenomenon

identified as the misinfonnation effect. In the post-event misinformation paradigm, an

individual who is witness to an event is later exposed to information that differs from

certain features of the initial event (Shaw et al., 1997; Zargoza & Lane; 1994). The

misinformation effect is revealed when individuals are questioned about the original

event and they integrate details of the post-event misinformation into their report

(Gabbert et al., 2003; Itsukushima et al., 2006; Lindsay, 1990).


Earlier studies of the misinformation effect concentrated on the consequences of

post-event narratives on the suggestibility of memory (Lindsay, 1990; Zaragoza & Lane,

1994). Zargoza and Lane (1994) employed the use of post-event narratives to study the

suggestibility of eyewitness memory. Participants viewed a slide show illustrating an

event and were immediately exposed to misinformation inserted in either a narrative they

read or a question they were asked. After an unrelated filler task, a memory recall test

was performed in which participants were requested to state the source of each item as

either "saw", "read", or "both". Overall, participants who were exposed to the

misinformation were more likely than the control group to report seeing the items that

were suggested in the post-event misinformation. That is, they thought they remembered

seeing an item when, in fact, they had only read about it. This study clearly demonstrates

the phenomenon referred to as the misinformation effect. It also illustrates that

suggestibility can be attributed to a source misattribution error, which occurs when an

individual misremembers the source of some information and the memory of one event is

misattributed to another (Gabbert et al., 2003).

However, Zargoza and Lane overlook the effect of demand characteristics on

source misattribution errors. Lindsay (1990) suggests that source-monitoring

experiments do not remove the likelihood that demand characteristics may contribute to

source misattribution errors. In Lindsay's description, demand characteristics refer to

any reasoning process influencing participants to respond to a memory recall test based

on information they know was obtained from a post-event. To resolve the hindrance of

demand characteristics, Lindsay divided participants into conditions where the

misinformation was either difficult or simple to distinguish from the original event. In


the low discriminability condition, post event narratives were presented immediately

following the original event. In the high dicriminability condition, post event narratives

were presented 48 hours afterward. Subsequent to a test of recall, participants in the low-

dicriminability condition made source misattribution errors but recalled fewer details.

However, individuals in the high discriminability condition were able to report more

details, but the misinformation hindered their capacity to accurately recall event details.

This indicates that not only do demand characteristics influence suggestibility but that

misleading suggestions can also affect the amount of information recalled.

Despite the findings that post-event narratives can influence memory recall and

affect the number of details reported, these studies fail to consider the social impact of

misinformation. Gabbert et al (2003) assert that social influence plays a critical role in

the acceptance of misinformation and is persuaded by both informational and normative

influences. Informational influences stem from a persons desire to be accurate in his/her

assessments and nonnative influences arise from the yearning to be liked or recognized

by others (Shaw et al, 1997). Informational influence has an effect because an individual

is inclined to give an accurate report when a test of recall is performed privately.

Normative influence on the other hand, has an effect since an individual is more likely to

accept misinformation when he/she experiences it through a personal interaction (Gabbert

et al., 2003). Typical studies in the area of suggestibility agree that co-witness statements

have a considerable effect on individual memory recall (Gabbert et al., 2003; Itsukushima

et al., 2006; Shaw et al., 1997; Wright et al., 2005). That is, individuals are more prone

to accepting misinfoimation when it is provided in a social context. Gabbert et al (2003)

refer to this as memory conformity.


In a study by Itsukushima et al. (2006), memory conformity was investigated by

presenting post-event misinformation through written or video format. Participants were

randomly allocated to a control group or a misinformation group. In both groups,

participants viewed 16 color slides depicting a woman's daily activities. Thirty minutes

following the slide show, participants in the misinformation group were shown a video

clip of two people discussing their impressions of the information presented. For the

experimental group, some of their statements conflicted with the information that was

presented earlier. For the participants in the control group the people in the video clip

were discussing impressions and thoughts that matched the information presented earlier.

Subsequent to viewing the post-event videos, participants were requested to record

whether they had agreed with what was asserted in the video. Participants were then

asked to perform a memory test in which pairs of slides were shown and the subjects

were asked to indicate which one they had actually observed previously. More erroneous

responses were found in the misinformation group, indicating that co-witness information

effects memory recall.

In a second experiment conducted by Itsukushima et al. (2006), the same

procedure was followed except that the post event infoiination was provided to the

subjects in written format rather than in a video clip. As in the first experiment, more

erroneous responses were found in the misinformation group. However, there were more

errors made when the information was presented in written format. Thus, this study

indicated that indirect social information influences the accuracy of memory recall.

Despite this finding, this study does not address the issue of direct interaction among co-

witnesses, which is a more common form of post event information.


To study the effect of co-witness information on memory, Shaw et al. (1997)

examined the effect of direct communication between eyewitnesses. Participants were

assigned to participant-confederate groups and observed a video clip of a robbery. They

then engaged in a non-related filler task. After the filler task, the experimenter asked the

groups questions concerning the events in the video. The participant and confederate

took turns responding to each question. For three of the questions, the participant replied

first. For six of the questions, the confederate answered first, giving a correct response

for three and an incorrect response for the other three. When participants received

erroneous information before they provided their own response, they were inclined to

provide the same incorrect response as the co-witness. This demonstrates that co-witness

information, whether communicated directly or indirectly, can have an immediate

influence on the accuracy of a witness's memory. However, this experiment did not

directly compare direct vs. indirect co-witness infolination. Thus, we examine Wright et

al.'s (2005) experiment.

In examining the effect of direct communication on memory recall, Wright et al.

presented misinformation both directly and indirectly. Participants were divided into two

groups: the individual condition or the pair's condition. Participants in the individual

condition were shown computer slides of 50 different faces. Subsequently, they were

shown 100 faces in a random order and were told that they had seen half of them before.

Participants were requested to fill out a response sheet with a confidence-rating scale that

ranged from: 1-not seen before to 4- seen before. In the pairs condition the same

procedure was followed, up until the response sheet was distributed. One of the

participants was randomly assigned to respond to the first 50 faces. For each face, the


participant responded in the first column, using the 4-point scale. The response sheet was

then passed to the other participants who responded in the second column. After the 50 th

face was shown, participants traded places. That is, for the remaining faces the second

participant responded first. Individuals in the dyads were more likely than the control

group to conform their answers when the information presented was not seen during the

original trial. The finding that people are influenced by other people's responses

demonstrates that information from social communication can affect people's responses.

The way in which information is communicated may also be important. Gabbert

et al (2003) found that individuals who directly conversed with co-witnesses were more

apt to experience a misinformation effect, than those who were not directly exposed to

the co-witness information. Participants were divided into two groups: the pair's

condition or the individual condition. Each member of a dyad watched a different

version of the same event. Participants in the individual condition watched either one

condition or the other. Initially participants in the non-dyad group completed a memory

recall questionnaire alone, whereas participants in the dyad groups were asked to discuss

the simulation before completing the questionnaire. This allowed the introduction of

misinformation (i.e., information from the version they did not see). After 45 minutes

had elapsed, all participants were asked to complete an additional memory recall

questionnaire. Participants who had conferred with co-witnesses recounted items of

misinformation that they attained during the discussion. This confin is the implication

that co-witness interaction may influence memory recall.

Typical studies examining the effect of interrogation style on accuracy of detail

during memory recall have concentrated on interviewer demeanor during suspect


interrogation. Interviewer demeanor refers to the interviewer's behavior during the

interrogation process, for example, friendly or not friendly (Baxter, Jackson & Bain,

2003).

An interrogation technique called the "Reid Technique" is a nine-step process

during which an interrogator sways the suspect towards a confession by the use of

unconventional or contrasting questions (Hartwig et al., 2005). It is intended to

overcome a suspect's resistance to admit guilt, but by doing so it can increase the

probability of a false confession. The interrogator initiates the interview using the

technique of maximization in which he/she questions the suspect in an exceedingly

confrontational manner immediately presuming guilt. The confrontational period persists

until the suspect becomes overwhelmed by despair. At this point, the interrogator

attempts to callously interrupt all efforts of denial. As the suspect's anxiety intensifies,

and he/she recognizes that denial does not present a course of escape, the interrogator

employs the minimization technique. During minimization, the interrogator highlights

the positive aspects of confession and implies that the suspect's alleged undertakings

were honorably justifiable (Kassin, 2006). Through this process, the interrogator is able

to induce a confession. Since the development of the Reid Technique, several studies

have endeavored to demonstrate that interrogation style affects a suspect's decision to

confess, regardless of innocence or guilt.

Russano, Meissner, Narchet, and Kassin (2005), found that individuals were more

likely to confess when minimization was used than when it was not. Participants were

assigned to participant-confederate dyads. Participants and confederates were requested

to work out a sequence of logic problems. The experimenter instructed the pair tc work


independently and not discuss their results to selected individual problems. In one

condition, the confederate enticed the participant to offer assistance on a problem that

was intended to be solved individually. In the other condition, the confederate did not

request assistance. After completing the puzzles, the experimenter accused the

participants of sharing responses on the individually designated problem. In the

minimization condition, the interrogator endeavored to reduce the seriousness of the

offence by making assertions that articulated compassion and concern and recommended

to participants that confession would be beneficial. In the no minimization condition, no

such statements were made. Overall, participants that were guilty of cheating were more

likely to plead guilty than innocent persons. More interestingly, individuals were more

likely to confess when the minimization technique was employed, than when it was not.

However, no significant interaction was found between interrogation technique and

innocence/guilt. This study demonstrates that the technique of minimization can affect a

suspect's decision to confess, not considering innocence or culpability. Extracting

confession from an innocent person can result in a false confession in which an individual

pleads guilty to an offence that he/she did not commit.

Gudjonnson (1999) has been one of the main researchers in the area of false

testimony, examining the influence of manipulation and coercive tactics. Pearse and

Gudjonnson (1999) subjected interview data from criminal cases to a detailed analysis,

which identified the nature and number of tactics present in every 5-minute segment of

each interview. They identified 39 interviewing techniques utilized to overcome the

resistance of suspects. They found that a higher rate of intimidation, manipulation, and

challenge was employed.


Although Gudjonnson and Pearse's study demonstrates the presence of coercive

questioning techniques, it neglects to examine the suggestibility of memory. In some of

his earlier research, Gudjonsson devised the Gudjonnson's Suggestibility Scale to

measure an individual's response to leading questions and negative feedback instructions.

Using the Gudjonnson Suggestibility Scale, Bain and Baxter (2000) and Baxter, Boon

and Marley (2006) found that suspects who were already questioned about the details of

an event often changed their initial responses when questioned again, if the second time

they were questioned was in a firm manner. This suggests that interviewer demeanor not

only influences a person's decision to confess, but also influences the accuracy of recall

of the original event's details.

A study conducted by Sondhi (2005) attempted to substantiate the finding that

interviewer behavior influences memory recall. Participants witnessed a simulated crime

in which and an individual entered a classroom a stole a purse. The event included six

significant details that participants were later questioned about. Subsequent to a non-

related filler task, participants were interviewed about the details of the event in either a

friendly, abrupt, or neutral manner. In all conditions, some of the questions posed by the

interviewer contained misinformation. Subsequent to the interview, participants partook

in another non-related filler activity. They were then questioned a final time about the

details of the event. Overall, interviewer demeanor had no significant effect on memory

recall. These results contradict those reported by Bain and Baxter (2000) and Baxter,

Boon and Marley (2006) who established that suspects who were previously inquired

about the features of an event frequently altered their original responses when questioned

again, if the second time they were questioned was in a firm manner. However, these


results may not be directly comparable due to differences in variable characteristics,

methodologies and sample populations.

Other variables have also been examined concurrently with interrogation style.

Specifically, Baxter, Jackson, and Bain (2003) examined the impact of self-esteem on

interrogative suggestibility. Participants were assigned to either the friendly or abrupt

interviewer condition, based on a previously acquired measure of self-esteem.

Participants were requested to listen to a narrative that they would later be interviewed

about. Following the narrative, participants completed a test of recall. They were then

administered negative feedback and questioned another time in a friendly or abrupt

manner. A significant interaction was discovered between interrogation style and self-

esteem. That is, participants with higher self-esteem demonstrated decreased levels of

interrogative suggestibility when interrogated in a firm manner, as opposed to individuals

with lower self-esteem. This suggests that individuals with low self-esteem are

especially susceptible to interrogative coerciveness and, consequently, are increasingly

hesitant when questioned by a firm interrogator.

In brief, interview demeanor can be a form of post-event information affecting

memory recall. However, post-event information is a more global concept.

It is evident that post-event information and interviewer demeanor can affect

accuracy of detail reported in eyewitness testimony. It is possible that memory

suggestibility can be affected by a mere error in source identification or can be a direct

influence of interrogation techniques, such as the Reid technique and interviewer

demeanor.


Taken together, these findings suggest that various factors can manipulate the

malleability of eyewitness memory. In review of the literature, it is evident that

interrogators need to intensely consider the existence of post-event information. In an

ideal set of circumstances, interrogators would be able to question eyewitnesses

immediately subsequent to an event. However, we do not live in a perfect world and

eyewitnesses are regularly questioned days or even weeks later. During the time between

the initial event and questioning, eyewitnesses are often exposed to a variety of sources

that can alter their memory for the event. Eyewitnesses often recount this misinformation

during the interrogation process. The problem lies in the fact that the misinformation is

further compounded by the interrogator's method of questioning. Reflect on the Reid

Technique. Although it is a strong method of questioning, consider a cost-benefit

analysis. Eyewitnesses will recount more information but at the risk of it being false. In

suspect and eyewitness interviews, this is not a desirable outcome. With any luck, future

research in this area will provide a foundation for the development of new interrogation

techniques that take into consideration these specific variables, among others.


References

Baxter, J.S., Boon, J.C.W., Marley, C. (2006). Interrogative pressures and responses to

minimally leading questions. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 87-98.

Baxter, J.S., Jackson, M., & Bain, S.A. (2003) Interrogative suggestibility: Interactions

between interviewee's self-esteem and interviewer style. Personality and

Individual Differences, 35, 1285-1292.

Bain, S.A. & Baxter, J.S. (2000). Interrogative suggestibility: The role of interviewer

behaviour. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 5, 123-133.

Gabbert„F., Memon, A., & Allen, K. (2003). Memory conformity: Can eyewitnesses

influence each other's memories for an event? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17,

533-543.

Hartwig, M., Granhag, P.A., & Vrij, A. (2005). Police interrogation from a social

psychology standpoint. Policing and Society, 15(4), 379-399.

Itsukushima, Y., Nishi, M., Maruyama, M., &Takahashi, M. (2006). The effect of

presentation medium of post-event information . Impact of co-witness

information. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 575-581.

Kassin, S. (2006). Internalized false confessions. In Toglia, M.P., Read, D.J, Ross,

D.F., & Lindsay, R.C. (Eds.), Handbook of eyewitness psychology. Volume 1.

New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Lindsay, D.S. (1990). Misleading questions can impair eyewitnesses' ability to rember

event details. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and

Cognition, 16(6), 1077-1083.

Post-event Infoiniation and Eyewitness Testimony14

Pearse, J. & Gudjonnson, G. (1999). Measuring influential police interviewing tactics: A

factor analytic approach. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 4(2), 221-238.

Russano, M.B., Meissner, C.A., Narchat, F.M., & Kassin, S.M. (2005) Investigating true

and false confessions within a novel experimental paradigm. American

Psychological Association, 16(6), 481-486.

Shaw, J.S., Garven, S., & Wood, J.M. (1997). Co-witness information can have

immediate effects on eyewitness memory reports. Law and Human Behaviour,

21(5), 503-523.

Sondhi, V. (2005). The role of interviewer behavior in eyewitness suggestibility. The

Journal of Credibility and Witness Psychology, 6(1), 1-19.

Wright, D.B., Mathews, S.H., & Skagerberg, E.M. (2005). Social recognition memory:

The effect of other people's responses for previously seen and unseen items.

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 11(3), 200-209.

Zaragoza, M.S. & Lane, S.M. (1994). Source misattribution and the suggestibility of

eyewitness memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory

and Cognition, 20(4), 934-945

Post-event Infon lotion and Eyewitness Testimony1

Running Head: Post-event Information and Eyewitness Testimony

The Effect of Post-event Information on Accuracy and Reliability of EyewitnessTestimony

Dianna M. Dawe

Algoma University College


Mistaken eyewitness identification has long been a difficulty within the legal

system (Hartwig, Granhag, & Vrij, 2005). It is frequently associated with the accuracy of

detail provided in eyewitness statements. Accuracy of detail in eyewitness testimony can

be described as an eyewitness's capacity to correctly describe the people, things, or

events that are essential in a criminal matter.

Testimony can be unreliable for a variety of reasons, including the effect of post-

event information (Baxter, Boon & Marley, 2006; Baxter, Jackson & Bain, 2003; Bain &

Baxter, 2000); Gabbert, Memon & Allen, 2003; Itsukushima, Nishi, Maruyama

&Takahashi, 2006; Lindsay, 1990; Shaw, Garven & Wood, 1997; Wright, Mathews &

Skagerberg, 2005; Zaragoza & Lane, 1994). Post-event information refers to any type of

information presented subsequent to an event (Gabbert et al., 2003). For example, it can

be introduced in police interrogations or through the presentation of misinformation.

Research on suggestibility indicates that post-event information can alter a

person's memory for detail or affect his/her comfort in reporting information. Typically,

studies examining the effect of post-event information have focused on a phenomenon

identified as the misinformation effect. In the post-event misinformation paradigm, an

individual who witnesses an event is later exposed to information that differs from certain

features of the initial event (Shaw et al., 1997; Zargoza & Lane; 1994). The

misinformation effect is revealed when individuals are questioned about the original

event and they integrate details of the post-event misinformation into their report

(Gabbert et al., 2003; Itsukushima et al., 2006; Lindsay, 1990).


Earlier studies of the misinformation effect concentrated on the consequences of

post-event narratives on the suggestibility of memory (Lindsay, 1990; Zaragoza & Lane,

1994). Zargoza and Lane (1994) employed the use of post-event narratives to study the

suggestibility of eyewitness memory. Participants viewed a slide show illustrating an

event and were immediately exposed to misinformation inserted in either a narrative they

read or a question they were asked. After an unrelated filler task, a memory recall test

was performed in which participants were requested to state the source of each item as

either "saw", "read", or "both". Overall, participants who were exposed to the

misinformation were more likely than the control group to report seeing the items that

were suggested in the post-event misinformation. That is, they thought they remembered

seeing an item when, in fact, they had only read about it. This study clearly demonstrates

the phenomenon referred to as the misinformation effect. It also illustrates that

suggestibility can be attributed to a source misattribution error, which occurs when an

individual misremembers the source of some information and the memory of one event is

misattributed to another (Gabbert et al., 2003).

Typical studies examining the effect of interrogation style on accuracy of detail

during memory recall have concentrated on interviewer demeanour during suspect

interrogation. An interrogation technique called the "Reid Technique" is a nine-step

process during which an interrogator sways the suspect towards a confession by the use

of unconventional or contrasting questions (Hartwig et al., 2005). It is intended to

overcome a suspect's resistance to admit guilt, but by doing so it can increase the

probability of a false confession. Since the development of the Reid Technique, several


studies have endeavoured to demonstrate that interrogation style affects a suspect's

decision to confess, regardless of innocence or guilt.

Interviewer demeanour refers to the interviewer's behaviour during the

interrogation process, for example, friendly or not friendly (Baxter, Jackson & Bain,

2003). Specifically, Bain and Baxter (2000) and Baxter, Boon and Marley (2006) found

that suspects who were already questioned about the details of an event often changed

their initial responses when questioned again, if the second time they were questioned

was in a firm manner. This suggests that interviewer demeanour not only influences a

person's decision to confess, but also influences the accuracy of recall of the original

event's details

In brief, interview demeanour can be a form of post-event information affecting

memory recall. However, post-event information is a more global concept.

It is evident that post-event information and interviewer demeanour can affect

accuracy of detail reported in eyewitness testimony. It is possible that memory

suggestibility can be affected by a mere error in source identification or can be a direct

influence of interrogation techniques, such as the Reid technique and interviewer

demeanour. However, it is unlikely that these variables are independent. Therefore the

present study was an attempt to examine how the influences of post-event information

may interact with interviewer demeanour. The design was a 2X3 factorial design. The

independent variables were type of post-event information (consistent infoi nation,

inconsistent information, or none) and interviewer demeanour (friendly or not friendly).

It was expected that there would be a main effect of post-event information and a main

effect of interviewer demeanour. Also it was expected that these variables would i erac


Specifically, the inconsistent/not friendly condition was expected to produce the lowest

accuracy in reporting detail and the consistent/not friendly condition would produce the

highest. It is presumed that in both conditions a not friendly interviewer manner would

provoke an increased desire to report event details, consistent or not.

The inconsistent/not friendly condition was expected to yield lower accuracy in

reporting than the inconsistent/friendly condition. Additionally, accuracy in reporting

would be lower in the inconsistent/not friendly condition than in the consistent/friendly

condition. It was expected that the no information condition would reveal higher

accuracy of reporting in the not friendly condition.

Method

Participants

Participants were undergraduate psychology students and college students. The

mean age was 23.2 years. Ten males and 53 females took part in the study.

Materials and Apparatus

Staged Crime Video

A staged crime was presented in video format. The video tape which was

approximately 30 seconds in length, presented 2 young women walking, with a young

man pursuing closely behind The young man ran up from behind them and snatched one

of the young women's purses. The man's height, stature, facial features and clothing

were all visible during the video.

Post-event narrative

Two versions of a post-event narrative were presented. One of the versions

included information that was consistent with the staged crime video (see Appendix A


The other version was inconsistent, including discrepancies in the suspect's height, hair

color; facial features and clothing (see Appendix B).

Narrative of Emotional Reaction to Violence

A narrative was presented. It was a paragraph about emotional reactions to media

violence (see Appendix C). This measure was presented to disguise the true purpose of

the experiment.

Video of Interrogation

Two versions of a video featuring a young woman asking 15 questions (see

Appendix D) regarding the staged crime were presented. In one of the versions, the

woman asked questions in a friendly manner (i.e., smiling, leaning forward, using a

friendly voice and attempting to make viewers comfortable). In the other version, the

woman was asking questions in a not friendly manner (i.e., no facial expressions, using a

loud stem voice and accusatory tone, and no attempt were made to make viewers feel

comfortable).

Answer sheet and interrogator measure

An answer sheet (see Appendix E) was provided to participants to write down

answers to the questions posed by the interviewer during the video. Subsequent to the

interviewer video, participants rated the interviewer's mannerisms on a 5-point Likert

rating scale (1 — very unpleasant manner, 2- somewhat unpleasant manner, 3- neither

unpleasant nor friendly, 4 — somewhat friendly manner, 5- very friendly manner).


Procedure

Participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 6 conditions (consistent/friendly,

consistent/not friendly, inconsistent/friendly, inconsistent/not friendly, no

information/friendly, no information/not friendly).

Participants entered a room and were given a package of materials and requested

to be seated in front of a large video screen. Subjects were informed that they would be

viewing a simulated crime event and were told that this was a study measuring emotional

response to mock crime events. Subjects then viewed a short 30 second video tape of a

mock crime (purse-snatching). Following the video tape, subjects were asked to

participate in a 5-minute non-related filler task (i.e., survey regarding media violence —

See Appendix F)

Following the non-related filler task, subjects were requested to write an open-

ended narrative about the events that occurred. They were then asked to read a one-page

narrative with infon-nation that was either consistent with the videotape, inconsistent with

it or not specifically related to it (i.e., it was a one-page summary about emotional

reaction to violence). Subsequent to reading the information, participants were separated

into either the friendly or not friendly condition.

Participants in both the friendly and not friendly conditions viewed either the

friendly interviewer video or the not friendly interviewer video. During the interview

videos, participants were requested to write down their answers to the questions asked in

the spaces provided. The number of correct responses made by each participant provided

a measure of accuracy, with fewer correct responses indicating poor recall. Excellent


recall of misinformation provided in the inconsistent narrative indicated memory

conformity (See Appendix G for Scoring Keys).

Subsequent to viewing the video tape, participants were asked to rate the

interviewer's demeanor during the video as a manipulation check. They were then

debriefed and were informed of the actual purpose of this study.

Results

Mean Correct Response

For mean correct response, post-event information was the only significant

manipulation, F (2, 57) = 7.158, p = .002. Participants in the consistent information

condition were significantly more accurate in recall (M = 17.2), than participants in the

no information condition (M = 14.2) and the inconsistent information condition (M =

13.5), using a Student Newman-Keuls Post Hoc Analysis at a = .05. Also, interviewer

demeanour was not significant, F 0, 57) = 2.043, p = .158. There was also no interaction

between interviewer demeanour and post-event information on mean correct response,

F (2,57) = 1.150,p = .324.

Mean incorrect response

Post-event information was the only significant manipulation, F (2, 57) = 14.213,

p = .000 when the number of incorrect responses was analyzed. Participants in the

consistent information condition made significantly fewer errors (M = 5.2) than

participants in the no information condition (M = 8.1) and the inconsistent information

condition (M = 9.7) using a Student Newman-Keuls Post Hoc Analysis at a = .05.

Interviewer demeanour was also not significant, F (l, 57) = .293,p = .590 for the mean


number of incorrect responses. Again, there was no interaction between interviewer

demeanour and post-event information on mean incorrect response, F (2, 57) = 0.90,

p = .914.

Recall of misinformation in the inconsistent information condition

Approximately 40% of the misinformation was recalled in the inconsistent

information condition, with more variability occurring in the friendly condition (SD =

23.1) than in the not friendly condition (SD = 8.6). See Figure 1.

1 1 r--20.00 0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00

Percent of Misinformation Recalled

80.00 100.00

Figure 1 - Percent of misinformation recalled in the inconsistent information condition by

interviewer demeanor.


Manipulation Check

The correlation between interviewer demeanor and the participants' rating of the

demeanor was -0.36, p = .780, indicating that it was not significant. Participants' rating

of interviewer demeanor in both the friendly and not friendly condition was widely

dispersed, ranging from very unpleasant to very friendly.

Discussion

Participants who were given inconsistent post-event information reported more

misinformation in their reports than in any other group, which supports my hypothesis

and replicates previous findings regarding the misinformation effect. However,

participants only recalled 40% of the misinformation which implies a lack of memory

confoii iity. Overall, these data suggest that inconsistent post-event information can affect

memory recall but only to a certain extent. These findings are in accordance with a

recent study conducted by Holliday and Albon (2004), who found that that reporting

misinfoll iation is reliant on the specific circumstances that transpire when the

misinformation is encoded and retrieved.

Interviewer demeanor alone did not affect memory recall significantly, which

does not replicate previous findings concerning the Reid Technique. Previous studies

have shown significant effects of interviewer demeanor when conducting pre and post

tests. Specifically, Baxter and Boon (2000) found an effect of interviewer demeanor

when participants were questioned initially in a friendly manner and then again in a not

friendly manner. In reviewing the present study, the possibility arises that a comparison

between a pre and post test measure of interviewer demeanor may have indicated an

effect.

Post-event Infoimation and Eyewitness Testimony11

Moreover, the type of post-event information presented did not change the effect

of interviewer demeanor on accuracy of detail reported, which did not support my

original hypothesis. The fact that interviewer demeanor and participants' rating of

demeanor have no significant correlation, leads me to assume that the interviewer video

was not realistic enough. Therefore, for future replications it would be prudent to

conduct interviews in person, rather than via video folinat or have a stronger

manipulation of interviewer demeanor (i.e., very friendly, less friendly). However, in

replicating this study, yes, it may be wise to use a stronger manipulation but perhaps not

as strong as the Reid Technique. Consider a cost-benefit analysis. Eyewitnesses will

recount more information but at the risk of it being false. In the real world of suspect and

eyewitness interviews, this is not a desirable outcome.


References

Baxter, J.S., Boon, J.C.W., Marley, C. (2006). Interrogative pressures and responses to

minimally leading questions. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 87-98.

Baxter, J.S., Jackson, M., & Bain, S.A. (2003) Interrogative suggestibility: Interactions

between interviewee's self-esteem and interviewer style. Personality and

Individual Differences, 35, 1285-1292.

Bain, S.A. & Baxter, J.S. (2000). Interrogative suggestibility: The role of interviewer

behaviour. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 5, 123-133.

Gabbert„F., Memon, A., & Allen, K. (2003). Memory conformity: Can eyewitnesses

influence each other's memories for an event? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17,

533-543.

Hartwig, M., Granhag, P.A., & Vrij, A. (2005). Police interrogation from a social

psychology standpoint. Policing and Society, 15(4), 379-399.

Holliday, R.E. & Albon, A.J. (2004). Minimizing misinformation effects in young

children with cognitive interview mnemonics. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18,

263-281.

Itsukushima, Y., Nishi, M., Maruyama, M., &Takahashi, M. (2006). The effect of

presentation medium of post-event information: Impact of co-witness

information. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 575-581.

Lindsay, D.S. (1990). Misleading questions can impair eyewitnesses' ability to rember

event details. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and

Cognition, 16(6), 1077-1083.


Shaw, J.S., Garven, S., & Wood, J.M. (1997). Co-witness infoi nation can have

immediate effects on eyewitness memory reports. Law and Human Behaviour,

21(5), 503-523.

Wright, D.B., Mathews, S.H., & Skagerberg, E.M. (2005). Social recognition memory:

The effect of other people's responses for previously seen and unseen items.

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 11(3), 200-209.

Zaragoza, M.S. & Lane, S.M. (1994). Source misattribution and the suggestibility of

eyewitness memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory

and Cognition, 20(4), 934-945

Tr7



Appendix A — Post-event information for the consistent condition

"I was working late Sunday night and saw 2 women walking through the mall.

They looked like they were having a good time laughing and talking. I saw a man who

was probably around 20 years old walking behind them. I was wondering to myself

whether he was following them or not because he didn't seem to be with them and the

mall was pretty much empty by this time. A few seconds later I noticed that he started to

walk faster, coming up quickly behind them. It kind of scared me a little bit because I

wasn't really sure what was going to happen. All of a sudden he pulled the hood from his

sweatshirt over his head and ran past the woman with the woman wearing the black coat

and snatched her purse! I was completely shocked. I didn't know what to do, so I called

the police."

"I noticed that the man was about 6"4, give or take an inch or so and he was about

average build. He had dark blond hair and a light complexion. It was pretty obvious that

he was Caucasian. I am almost positive that he had a slight beard and moustache and no

visible scars but I couldn't quite say for sure. But what I did notice is that he didn't have

any glasses or jewellery on. He was also wearing a dark burgundy hooded sweatshirt, tan

coloured pants and white sneakers."

"The 2 women seemed pretty upset by what happened, so I came out of the store

and told them that I had seen the entire incident and called the police. They told me that

they hadn't really seen much of what the man looked like and asked if I would give a

statement to the police. I felt so bad for the one woman; she was very upset and

concerned because she had all of her university tuition in her purse. I couldn't even

reassure her because by the time the police had arrived the man was long gone."


Appendix B — Post-event information for the inconsistent condition

"I was working late Sunday night and saw 2 women walking through the mall.

They looked like they were having a good time laughing and talking. I saw a man who

was probably around 20 years old walking behind them. I was wondering to myself if he

was following them or not because he didn't seem to be with them and the mall was

pretty much empty by this time. A few seconds later I noticed that he started to walk

faster, coming up quickly behind them. It kind of scared me a little bit because I wasn't

really sure what was going to happen. All of a sudden he pulled the hood from his

sweatshirt over his head and ran past the woman wearing the red scarf and snatched her

shopping bag! I was completely shocked. I didn't know what to do, so I called the

police."

"I noticed that the man was about 5"11, give or take an inch or so and he was

about average build. He had black hair and a light complexion. It was pretty obvious

that he was Caucasian. I am almost positive that no facial hair and small scar on his right

cheek but I couldn't quite say for sure. Actually, the more I think about it the more

positive I am that he had a scar. I also noticed that he wasn't wearing glasses but had

gold chain around his neck. He was also wearing a dark burgundy hooded sweatshirt,

light coloured jeans and black boots."

"The 2 women seemed pretty upset by what happened, so I came out of the store

and told them that I had seen the entire incident and called the police. They told me that

they hadn't really seen much of what the man looked like and asked if I would give a

statement to the police. I felt so bad for the one woman; she was very upset and

concerned because the shopping bag that was stolen had her new winter coat in it. I

couldn't even reassure her because by the time the police had arrived the man was long

gone."


Appendix C — Post-event information for the no information condition

George Gerber, who has based much of his research on the content and analyses

of TV programs and studies of media exposure, offers his perspective on the effect of

media violence on individuals. Gerber argues that it is not violence per se that is

undesirable, but the messages that accompany it. Whether or not people are emotionally

aroused by media violence, the programs alter their consciousness by legitimizing

violence and victimization. However, other researchers suggest that despite arousal and

legitimizing thoughts, there is an intervening and self-inhibiting mechanism which acts as

a deterrent. Researchers suggest that individuals may even learn sympathy from media

violence, while other investigators imply that other variables present in the situation

might account for these results.

To understand the research on violence as a genre we must ask whether the

responses researchers have found are responses to violence as a genre or to a particular

type of violence. In addition, we need to know whether the response to the films was

aggressive, or whether the aggression itself a response to another, more immediate, but

less visible cue.

Several studies suggest that the emotional excitement created by media violence

may be more diffuse than the term aggression implies. It may be that stress rather than

aggression is experienced by viewers, and that extraneous variables such as mood and

style significantly modify responses. Conceivably, the response found by investigators

was anxiety, and the subsequent aggression was an attempt to cope with it.

Adapted from: McCormack, T. (1978). Machismo in media research: A critical reviewof research on violence and pornography. Social Problems, 25 (5), 544-555.


Appendix D — Questions asked by interviewer

1 Where did the event take place?

2. Can you describe what the victim was wearing?

a. Color and type of outwear.

b. Color and type of pants

c. Color and type of footwear

3. Can you describe any specific details of what the suspect did to the victim?

4. What is the gender of the suspect?

5. What is the approximate age of the suspect? Please be as specific as possible.

6. What is the height (in feet and inches) of the suspect? Please be specific.

7. What color is the suspect's hair?

8. What is color is the suspect's skin complexion?

9. Does the suspect have any facial hair? If so please provide a brief description.

10. Does the suspect have any visible markings? (i.e., tattoos or scars)

11. What was the suspect wearing?

a. Color and type of outwear.

b. Color and type of pants

c. Color and type of footwear

12. Was the suspect wearing any visible accessories? If so please provide a brief

description.

13. Was the suspect running or walking when this occurred?

14. Were there any other witnesses present at the time?

15. In which direction did the suspect come from? (i.e., towards the victim or from

behind)


Appendix E — Answer sheet

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.


10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

On a scale of 1-5 please rate the interviewer's demeanor during the video presentation.Please circle only one answer.

1 Very unpleasant manner

2 Somewhat unpleasant manner

3 Neither unpleasant nor friendly

4 Somewhat friendly manner

5 Very friendly manner.


Appendix F - Survey about media violence

The following scenarios occur in many of today's popular television shows, videos andvideo games. Please read the following and indicate which audience rating you thinkeach should have and state the reason for your decision:

G- General Rating — All audiencesPG — some material may not be suitable for children14A — some material may not be suitable for children under the age of 1418A — some material may not be suitable for children under the age of 18R — Explicit violence, nudity and coarse language

1. A cartoon depicts a rabbit getting hit over the head with a hammer and seconds laterlittle birds are dancing around its head. Happy music is playing.

G

PG 14A 18A R

2. A sitcom depicts a woman who appears to be angry slapping another woman in theface. A laugh soundtrack comes on.

G

PG 14A 18A R

3. A superhero has to save the day from the evil villain and kicks the villain in the chest.

G PG 14A 18A R


4. A video game depicts a cartoon hero trying to save the world by stomping on villain'sheads.

G

PG 14A 18A

5. The evening news features the War in Iraq, including a visual display of the aftermathof a bombing.

G

PG 14A 18A

6. A young boy is playing catch with his father. The ball hits his father in the nose,causing it to bleed. A laugh soundtrack comes on.

G

PG 14A 18A

7. A cartoon shows a character throwing nails down on the road so his nemesis will stepon them. He steps on them, and the character is laughing hysterically. The entirecartoon is set up in this fashion with the 2 characters fighting continuously.

G PG 14A 18A


8. In the movie Home Alone, the young male character is subjected to burglary attempts.He prevents these attempts from happening by hurting the burglars in a variety offashions. For example: Booby-trapping the door so when they attempt to open it they arehit in the face with an iron.

G

PG 14A 18A

9. In a cartoon show, an anvil is dropped from a roof top and lands on character below.The character doesn't appear hurt and gets up quickly only to retaliate.

G

PG 14A 18A

10. A woman and her friend are arguing. The woman hits her friend with her purse. Alaugh soundtrack is heard

G

PG 14A 18A

11. A sitcom depicts a family out bowling together. The father is standing behind hisson as he is about to throw the ball. The son accidentally throws the ball backwards,hitting his father in the groin.

G PG 14A 18A


For younger viewers, most harmful contextual features are seen most often in cartoons.The typical preschooler who daily watches about two hours of cartoons will be exposedto 10,000 violent incidents per year, of which 500 are at high risk of modeling aggressiveattitudes and behaviours.

Facts:• More than one-third of violent scenes featured "bad" characters who were never

punished• 70 % showed no remorse or penalty at the time violence occurred• 40 % of all violence included humour• More than 50 % of the scenes studied showed no pain cues• More than 50 % of the violent incidents would be lethal or incapacitating if they

occurred in "real life."• 40 % of the violence that occurs is perpetrated by attractive (hero) role models

Now that you have read this information, are there any answers that you wouldlike to change? Go back and change any of your answers.


Appendix G - Scoring key consistent/ none/ inconsistent — correct/ incorrect

Acceptable Answers 1 ot. per correct response1.

MallShopping Center 1

2. 1 per color & 1 per item1

1. Black Coat 1

2. Blue Jeans1

13. Black Jeans/Boots

1

1

3.Ran past her and took her purse

Stole her purse 1

4.

Male 1

5.

18-221

6.

6"2 — 6"61

7.Dark BlondDirty Blond 1

Light

8.LightWhite

1

9.Slight mustache and beard

1


10.NONE 1

11. 1 per color & 1 per style

11. Burgundy/Red Sweatshirt/Sweater

1

2. Tan/Light Pants 1

3. White Shoes/Sneakers1

1

1

12.NONE

1

13.Started walking and then ran up from behind 1

1

14.Ticket booth worker

1

Friend1

15.

From Behind1


Appendix H - Scoring key inconsistent1 nt. for misinformation

Misinformation1 .Red Scarf

1 per color & 1 per style1

1

MisinformationRan past her and stole her shopping bag/bag 1

Misinformation5"9 — 6"1

1

MisinformationBlackDark

Brown

1

MisinformationNO

1

Misinformation1 .Scar

2. On right cheek

1

1

Misinformation1. Light Colored Jeans

2. Black Boots

1 per color & 1 per style

1

1

1

1

MisinformationGold Chain 1

ptvnt nfrtn nd tn ttn 1 rnnn hd: ptvnt nfrtn nd tn ttn ttn dnn...

Documents