Witnesses' susceptibility to misleading post-event information delivered in a social media-style video.

In many criminal cases, outcomes rely on eyewitness evidence. Exposure to misleading information after an event reduces the accuracy of witnesses' memories. In some circumstances, warnings about misinformation can protect witnesses. As social media is a growing source of misleading information, this study examined the effect of misleading post-event information delivered via a social media-style video, as well as the utility of a minimal versus detailed warning. Participants (N = 145) watched a video showing an electrician stealing items from a client's home. Next, they received one of three pre-warnings regarding forthcoming misleading information: a minimal warning indicating that caution should be taken, a detailed warning specifying the presence of misleading information, or no warning. Participants received the misleading information via a social media video or a standard text-based narrative. Finally, they completed a recognition test. Although delivery method did not affect errors for misleading items, detailed warnings were only effective against text-based misleading information. Participants were more confident about their correct than incorrect responses for misleading items; confidence was not affected by delivery method or warning. This experiment is the first to demonstrate people's susceptibility to misleading post-event information delivered in a social media-style video using an eyewitness paradigm.

Open-ended initial invitations are particularly helpful in eliciting forensically relevant information from child witnesses.

BACKGROUND: Open-ended prompting is an essential tool for interviewers to elicit evidentiary information from children reporting abuse. To date, no research has examined whether different types of open-ended prompts elicit details with differing levels of forensic relevance. OBJECTIVE: To examine interviewers' use of three open-ended prompt subtypes (initial invitations, breadth prompts, and depth prompts) and compare the forensic relevance of the information elicited by each. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: Transcripts of field interviews conducted by 53 police interviewers with children aged 6- to 16-years alleging abuse were examined. METHODS: In each transcript, initial invitations, breadth prompts, and depth prompts were identified, and the child's response was parsed into clauses. Clauses were classified according to their forensic relevance: essential to the charge (i.e., a key point of proof or element of the offence), relevant to the offending (i.e., what occurred before, during, or after an incident but not an essential detail), context (i.e., background information), irrelevant to the charge, no information provided, or repeated information already provided earlier. RESULTS: Interviewers posed fewer initial invitations than breadth and depth prompts, p < .001, ηp2 = 0.58. Initial invitations elicited higher proportions of essential and relevant clauses than breadth and depth prompts; depth prompts further elicited higher proportions of essential clauses than breadth prompts, ps ≤ 0.001. We found few effects of children's age. CONCLUSIONS: Initial invitations are a particularly useful subtype of open-ended prompt for interviewers to elicit details that are legislatively essential for prosecution of crimes from children of all ages.

The effects of episode spacing on adult's reports of a repeated event.

Witnesses' reports of repeated events have been the focus of much research; however, the spacing interval between each episode of the event has differed greatly. The aim of the current study was to determine whether spacing interval affects participants' memory reports. Adults (N = 217) watched one (n = 52) or four videos depicting workplace bullying. The repeated event participants watched the four videos all in one day (n = 55), one per day over four consecutive days (n = 60), or one every three days over 12 days (n = 50). One week after the last (or only) video, participants reported on that video and answered some reflective questions about the procedure. Repeated-event participants also reported on what usually happens across the videos. Single-event participants reported proportionally more accurate information about the target video than repeated-event participants, and spacing interval did not affect repeated event participants' accuracy. However, accuracy scores were close to ceiling while errors rates were at floor levels, preventing us from drawing strong conclusions. We found some evidence that episode spacing affected participants' perceptions of their memory performance. Overall, spacing may have a minimal effect on adults' memory for repeated events, but further research is required.

Laypeople's perceptions of the effects of event repetition, reporting delay, and emotion on children's and adults' memory.

For crimes such as child abuse and family violence, jurors' assessments of memory reports from key witnesses are vital to case outcomes in court. Since jurors are not experts on memory, the present research measured laypeople's (i.e., non-experts') beliefs about how three key factors affect witnesses' memory reports for an experienced event: how frequently an event was experienced (repeated, single), the delay between experiencing and reporting the event, and the emotional valence of the event. Across two studies, lay participants completed an online survey that measured their beliefs about each factor. In Study 1, 51 participants completed a survey about how the three factors affect children's memory. In Study 2, another 51 participants completed a survey about how the three factors affect adult's memory. Across both studies, delays were believed to worsen memory, and emotion was believed to improve memory. Beliefs about single and repeated events showed different patterns across the studies. In Study 1, participants' beliefs about children's memory for repeated experience were variable. In Study 2, participants believed that adults' memory was worse for repeated events than single events. Overall, laypeople demonstrated many accurate beliefs about memory, but showed some confusion about children's memory for repeated events.

Factors influencing the perceived credibility of children alleging physical abuse.

Adults' assessments of the credibility of children's reports are affected by factors including the frequency of abuse, reporting delays and the child's age. The present study examined whether similar factors affect the perceived credibility of children reporting physical abuse, which is more common than sexual abuse. Two hundred and eight mock jurors read a simulated transcript of a child reporting physical abuse to police and made credibility ratings. Within each transcript, abuse frequency (once, repeated), reporting timing (recent, delayed), police question type (open, closed) and child age (6 or 10 years) were manipulated. The child was considered more credible when the abuse was only experienced once and reported shortly after it occurred, and when prompted with open questions. The child's age did not affect credibility judgments. Current findings support recommendations to prioritise open questions with children and provide evidence for extension of the benefits of open questions to children's credibility.

Mental context reinstatement improves adults' reports of additional details from two instances of a repeated event.

Remembering specific episodes of a repeated event can be challenging for witnesses. A mental context reinstatement (MCR) instruction increases the number of accurate details that adults report about a single (i.e., non-repeated) event; we examined whether it is similarly beneficial for adults' reports of a repeated event. Ninety-six participants completed four activity sessions over 2 weeks. One week after the final session, participants were interviewed about two episodes: the time that they could remember best and another time. Two groups of participants received a MCR instruction: MCR1 participants were given a MCR instruction before reporting the time they remembered best, while MCR2 participants were given the same instruction as well as a "refresher" instruction before they reported on another time. Control participants did not receive any MCR instructions. Interview condition did not affect participants' reports of memory items from the activities. However, MCR1 and MCR2 participants reported more additional details - that is, unverifiable details from before, during and after the activities - than control participants. They were also more likely to spontaneously report the name of the research assistant who conducted the activities. Our results provide initial support for the use of a MCR instruction to support adults' recall of repeated events.

The effects of episode similarity on children's reports of a repeated event.

Much research has tested techniques to improve children's reporting of episodes from a repeated event by interviewing children after they have experienced multiple episodes of a scripted event. However, these studies have not considered any effects of the similarity shared between event episodes on children's reports. In the current study, 5- to 9-year-olds experienced four episodes of a scripted repeated event that shared a high (n = 76) or low (n = 76) degree of similarity, and were subsequently interviewed about individual episodes. The proportional amount and accuracy of children's reported details were tallied. Children reported proportionally more details and more script deviations after experiencing the high, compared to low, similarity event. Conversely, children were more accurate in their episodic reports when they experienced the low, compared to high, similarity event. The current findings have implications for the generalisability and comparability of past results across laboratory studies.

A Comparison of Responses to Substantive Transition Prompts in Interviews With Children.

This study examined children's responses to two alternate prompts used to transition to the substantive phase of an interview. Children ( N = 401) experienced four scripted events and were later interviewed. After rapport building, half of the children were asked, "Tell me what you're here to talk to me about today," whereas the other half were asked, "Tell me why you're here to talk to me today." Children's responses were coded as informative (e.g., nouns) or uninformative (e.g., "don't know"). The what prompt elicited more informative responses than the why prompt, and 7- to 9-year-olds were more informative than 5- to 6-year-olds regardless of the type of prompt they received. Given that the what prompt elicited more informative responses, the present study provides initial support for this phrasing when forensic interviewers transition to the substantive phase.

The Effects of Practice on Children's Ability to Apply Ground Rules in a Narrative Interview.

Despite the widespread use of ground rules in forensic interview guidelines, it is unknown whether children retain and apply these rules throughout narrative interviews. We evaluated the capacity of 260 five- to nine-year-olds to utilize three ground rules. At the beginning of the interview all children heard the rules; half also practiced them. Children then responded to open-ended prompts about a repeated laboratory event and were assessed for their application of the rules. Logistic regressions revealed that practice only benefitted the use of the "don't know" rule. Although the children accurately answered "don't understand" and "correct me" practice questions, practice appeared to give no greater benefit than just hearing the rules. Results suggest that the current format of ground rule practice in interview guidelines is appropriate for the "don't know" rule, but the other rules may require more extensive practice with this age group.