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

Abstract

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.

Does rapport‐building boost the eyewitness eyeclosure effect in closed questioning?

“…It would therefore be important to extend our findings to free-recall tasks, which would furthermore provide data on the amount of time and effort expended by witnesses in recounting their memories. Finally, our Eyes-Closed participants were told that eyeclosure should assist their remembering, whereas participants in prior studies were either told nothing, or given a decoy justification ('it may help you to relax'; Vredeveldt et al, 2015). We have argued that disclosing the purpose realistically characterizes the eyeclosure technique; nevertheless it would be useful to explore whether witnesses' understanding of the purpose of closing their eyes affects its benefits.…”

“…In contrast, Vredeveldt and colleagues have gathered evidence in favour of modality-specific processes. In particular, when focusing solely on witnesses' reporting of highly specific, fine-grained details, they found that eyeclosure selectively enhances visual recall (e.g., Vredeveldt & Penrod, 2013;Vredeveldt et al, 2015). Together these findings point to both modality-specific and generalized cognitive processes underpinning eyeclosure effects.…”

“…Eyeclosure can be a valuable tool for supporting witnesses in investigative interviews (Mastroberardino, Natali, & Candel, ; Vredeveldt et al ., ). For instance, Perfect et al .…”

“…Eyeclosure can be a valuable tool for supporting witnesses in investigative interviews (Mastroberardino, Natali, & Candel, 2012;Vredeveldt et al, 2015). For instance, Perfect et al (2008) found that people who closed their eyes whilst remembering events were better able to correctly answerand less likely to incorrectly answerquestions about those events, compared to people who kept their eyes open.…”

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

“…All panel members had extensive experience with drug cases in which observations by surveillance detectives typically play a role. We showed our video to each panel member individually and asked: ‘What information in this video would you consider to be most important from the perspective of a criminal investigation?’ (for similar approaches, see Roberts & Higham, ; Vredeveldt, Tredoux, Nortje, et al ., ). Each panel member provided as many responses as they wished and ordered their responses in terms of priority.…”