Witnesses’ Verbal Evaluation of Certainty and Uncertainty During Investigative Interviews: Relationship with Report Accuracy

Paulo, R.M; Albuquerque, Pedro; Bull, Ray

doi:10.1007/s11896-019-09333-6

Cited by 8 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 51 publications

(78 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…the robber had a jacket). This finding is consistent with previous literature suggesting unlike other types of confidence judgments, spontaneous verbal judgments of uncertainty are linked to report accuracy (Paulo et al, 2015a(Paulo et al, , 2019.…”

Section: Insert Tablesupporting

confidence: 93%

“…Furthermore, these high accuracy values are compatible with previous research in which clustering retrieval enhanced the amount of accurate information provided by participants without compromising report accuracy (Paulo et al, 2016, 2017; Thorley, 2018). Lastly, although it is beyond the scope of this study to address the confidence-accuracy (CA) relationship (Luna & Martín-Luengo, 2010; Sarwar, Allwood, & Innes-Ker, 2014), our study supports the findings of Paulo, Albuquerque, and Bull (2015, 2019) suggesting spontaneous verbal judgments of uncertainty can be relevant when looking at report accuracy. Participants were able to identify less accurate information by spontaneously verbalizing low confidence utterances.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

“…A high (and similar) report accuracy was expected for all groups (Paulo et al, 2016, 2017; Thorley, 2018) because all retrieval strategies included adequate instructions (e.g., instruction not to guess; rapport building; transfer of control) known to enhance report accuracy (Fisher et al, 2010; Griffiths et al, 2010; Paulo et al, 2013). Lastly, as reported in previous studies (Paulo, Albuquerque, & Bull, 2015; Paulo, Albuquerque, & Bull, 2019), we hypothesized participants would be able to identify less accurate information by spontaneously verbalizing low confidence utterances (see Method section), regardless of the retrieval strategy used.…”

Section: Current Studymentioning

confidence: 85%

“…Report accuracy was measured in correct recall proportion: the ratio between the number of correct units of information recalled over all units of information recalled. As suggested by Paulo, Albuquerque, and Bull (2015, 2019), the confidence level participants qualitatively assigned to the information was considered in the accuracy analysis as an independent variable manipulated within subjects (see Method section).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As suggested by Paulo, Albuquerque, Saraiva, et al (2015 andPaulo et al 2019), units of information were also categorized according to the confidence level participants qualitatively assigned to these as either: (a) information recalled with no confidence utterances (regular recall)-when participants recalled information that had no adjacent verbal expression of uncertainty (e.g., 'He had a jacket'); or (b) information recalled with low confidence (uncertainties)-when participants spontaneously verbalized uncertainty (e.g., I think; maybe; I believe, I am not sure, possibly, etc.) to communicate to the interviewer they were unsure about the accuracy of this particular unit of information (e.g., 'I believe he had a jacket').…”

Section: Interviewers Training and Codingmentioning

confidence: 94%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Testing two retrieval strategies to enhance eyewitness memory: Category and location clustering recall.

Paulo

Jones

Mendes

2021

Psychology, Public Policy, and Law

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Asking eyewitnesses to provide an initial account using free recall strategies is a crucial procedure used in most investigative interviews (e.g. Cognitive Interview or PEACE model) allowing eyewitnesses to recall accurate and detailed information about the crime. Recent studies suggest clustering retrieval strategies like Category Clustering Recall (CCR) can also be effective for obtaining accurate information from eyewitnesses, and perhaps more effective than the change order mnemonic, a witness-compatible questioning, or a free recall task. This study compared how effective three retrieval strategies were (free recall, CCR, and a new retrieval strategy: Location Clustering Recall-LCR) for obtaining and initial account from eyewitnesses when used as the sole form of retrieval but combined with compatible preliminary instructions, mnemonics, and procedures that constitute best practice. We employed a between-subjects experimental design where 69 participants watched a mock robbery video and were interviewed 48 hours later with either a free recall, CCR, or LCR. Participants interviewed with CCR or LCR recalled a higher number of correct details, particularly person-related details. Participants interviewed with LCR also recalled a higher number of environmental details. Report accuracy was high, and similar, for all groups. This study provides further evidence of the ecological validity of CCR as well as initial evidence suggesting LCR might be an effective retrieval strategy as well. These retrieval strategies (CCR and LCR) might be particularly advantageous in situations where there are multiple crime-scene locations and/or the interviewer is particularly interested in obtaining information concerning environmental and person-related details.

show abstract

Section: Insert Tablesupporting

confidence: 93%