The cognitive interview buffers the effects of subsequent repeated questioning in the absence of negative feedback.

The Cognitive Interview (CI) is known to elicit high-quality information from cooperative witnesses. The present study examined whether the CI protects against two suggestive interview techniques: repeated questioning and negative feedback. Young adults (n = 98) watched one of two crime videos and were interviewed with either a CI or free recall. One week later, a second interviewer asked answerable questions (about information in the video) and unanswerable questions (about information not in the video). Half of the participants received negative feedback about their performance. All participants were then asked the questions a second time. The CI resulted in more correct responses to answerable questions and fewer errors to unanswerable questions at the first questioning. The CI produced the highest consistency for answerable questions in the face of repeated questioning in the absence of negative feedback, and resulted in the most changes in responses to answerable questions when negative feedback was applied. No effects were found for unanswerable questions. The CI protected against repeated questioning, but only in the absence of negative feedback.

Face recognition and description abilities in people with mild intellectual disabilities.

BACKGROUND: People with intellectual disabilities (ID) are as likely as the general population to find themselves in the situation of having to identify and/or describe a perpetrator's face to the police. However, limited verbal and memory abilities in people with ID might prevent them to engage in standard police procedures. METHOD: Two experiments examined face recognition and description abilities in people with mild intellectual disabilities (mID) and compared their performance with that of people without ID. Experiment 1 used three old/new face recognition tasks. Experiment 2 consisted of two face description tasks, during which participants had to verbally describe faces from memory and with the target in view. RESULTS: Participants with mID performed significantly poorer on both recognition and recall tasks than control participants. However, their group performance was better than chance and they showed variability in performance depending on the measures introduced. CONCLUSIONS: The practical implications of these findings in forensic settings are discussed.

The impact of post-encoding alcohol consumption on episodic memory recall and remember-know responses in heavy drinkers.

Introduction: People often consume alcohol following trauma, particularly in response to distressing memories. To date, little is known about how post-encoding alcohol consumption influences episodic memory recall for negative events. Understanding these effects may help to improve support for trauma victims - for example, witnesses and victims of crimes. Methods: We tested 60 participants who self-described as heavy drinkers. After watching an analog trauma film, half were allocated to consuming a moderate dose of alcohol (Alcohol-Exposed group), while half received a placebo drink (Placebo-Control group). Immediately and after a one-week delay, participants recalled the event via free and cued recall tasks. Participants also gave remember-know responses and confidence ratings, elucidating alcohol's effect on experiential memory. Results: Free recall performance was similar for the Alcohol-Exposed group and the Placebo-Control group during Sessions 1 and 2. The Alcohol-Exposed group benefitted more from the delayed repeated retrieval attempt. For the cued recall task, the Alcohol-Exposed group provided more "Do not Know" responses compared to the Placebo-Control group in both sessions. For the Alcohol-Exposed group only "Correct Know" responses increased from Session 1 to 2. Although memory performance improved across sessions, confidence levels decreased from Session 1 to 2 in the Alcohol-Exposed group. Discussion: Post-encoding alcohol consumption appears to impact immediate episodic memory retrieval; however, this effect is only temporary in nature. No evidence was found that alcohol primarily reduces remembering responses. Much like previous findings focusing on pre-encoding alcohol consumption (Hagsand et al., 2017), current findings suggest that providing individuals who drank alcohol after witnessing an incident with a delayed repeated retrieval attempt can lead to more complete and accurate testimonies.

The effects of alcohol and co-witness information on memory reports: a field study.

RATIONALE: Witnesses who discuss a crime together may report details that they did not see themselves but heard about from their co-witness. Co-witness information may have beneficial and harmful effects on memory accuracy depending on whether the information was correct or incorrect. OBJECTIVES: Given the prevalence of intoxicated witnesses, it is imperative to understand how alcohol influences this effect. METHODS: The present study asked pubgoers (n = 67) at varying levels of intoxication to recall a mock crime video after having also watched a video witness statement containing both correct and false information. RESULTS: Increased intoxication was associated with decreased confidence, completeness and accuracy, but no increased tendency to report false information. Exposure to incorrect post-event information (PEI) can lead to the incorporation of incorrect information, whereas exposure to correct PEI increased accuracy, regardless of individuals' alcohol intoxication status. CONCLUSIONS: Thus, whilst discussion and intoxication can negatively impact eyewitness memory, discussion may also have benefits for both sober and intoxicated witnesses.

Would you believe an intoxicated witness? The impact of witness alcohol intoxication status on credibility judgments and suggestibility.

Memory conformity may occur when a person's belief in another's memory report outweighs their belief in their own. Witnesses might be less likely to believe and therefore take on false information from intoxicated co-witnesses, due to the common belief that alcohol impairs memory performance. This paper presents an online study in which participants (n = 281) watched a video of a mock crime taking place outside a pub that included a witness either visibly consuming wine or a soft drink. Participants then read a statement from the witness that varied in the number of false details it contained before being asked to recall the crime. We found that the intoxicated witness was regarded as significantly less credible, but participants were not less likely to report misinformation from them. This suggests that intoxication status impacts one's perception of how credible a source is, but not one's ability to reject false suggestions from this source. Our findings reinforce the importance of minimizing co-witness discussion prior to interview, and not to assume that people automatically (correctly or not) discount information provided by intoxicated co-witnesses.

The intoxicated co-witness: effects of alcohol and dyadic discussion on memory conformity and event recall.

RATIONALE: Co-witness discussion is common and often witnesses are under the influence of alcohol. As such, it is important to understand how such factors may influence eyewitness testimony. OBJECTIVES: We combined a co-witness memory paradigm with an alcohol administration paradigm to examine the influence of alcohol and dyadic discussion on remembering a mock crime. METHODS: Intoxicated and sober dyads discussed a previously seen video, whilst in a control condition sober and intoxicated individuals recalled the event on their own. Unknown to the dyads, each discussion partner saw a different version of the video including unique details not present in the other video version. All participants then engaged in a second individual recall attempt. RESULTS: Dyads were more likely to recall misleading details in their individual recall attempts compared to the control group. Intoxicated and sober dyads were equally likely to report misleading information. Alcohol intoxication had no negative impact on individuals' ability to correctly identify the source of their responses. Intoxicated participants recalled fewer details under free recall conditions. Alcohol had a detrimental effect on participants' confidence in their free recall accounts. CONCLUSIONS: Possible alcohol-related and social-cognitive mechanisms are discussed which may contribute to the current findings as well as applied implications for interviewing intoxicated witnesses.

Alcohol-induced retrograde facilitation renders witnesses of crime less suggestible to misinformation.

RATIONALE: Research has shown that alcohol can have both detrimental and facilitating effects on memory: intoxication can lead to poor memory for information encoded after alcohol consumption (anterograde amnesia) and may improve memory for information encoded before consumption (retrograde facilitation). This study examined whether alcohol consumed after witnessing a crime can render individuals less vulnerable to misleading post-event information (misinformation). METHOD: Participants watched a simulated crime video. Thereafter, one third of participants expected and received alcohol (alcohol group), one third did not expect but received alcohol (reverse placebo), and one third did not expect nor receive alcohol (control). After alcohol consumption, participants were exposed to misinformation embedded in a written narrative about the crime. The following day, participants completed a cued-recall questionnaire about the event. RESULTS: Control participants were more likely to report misinformation compared to the alcohol and reverse placebo group. CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that we may oversimplify the effect alcohol has on suggestibility and that sometimes alcohol can have beneficial effects on eyewitness memory by protecting against misleading post-event information.

Enhancing older adults' eyewitness memory for present and future events with the Self-Administered Interview.

Older adults' memory reports are often less complete and accurate than those by younger adults. The current study assessed the suitability of the Self-Administered Interview (SAI) as retrieval support for older eyewitnesses, and examines whether experience with the SAI leads to improved performance on subsequent events where the SAI is not used. Participants recalled an event with the SAI or free recall instructions. After 1 week, all participants watched a second event and freely recalled its content. SAI participants reported more correct details for the initial event, and a "transfer" of the initial recall advantage to the second event was observed.