7.4.4.3 Empirical support of the NICHD Protocol
Numerous field studies support the effectiveness of the NICHD Protocol for increasing the quality and quantity of information provided by children. Also, these studies show that the NICHD Protocol improves interviewer performance by helping them to adhere to best practice guidelines like the MOGP and ABE. Interviewers trained on the NICHD Protocol tend to use more open-ended prompts and fewer option-posing and suggestive questions than interviewers who use a traditional police interview (see Benia, Hauck-Filho, Dillenburg, & Stein, 2015, for a meta-analysis). Interviewers trained on the NICHD Protocol also tend to ask any option-posing and suggestive questions later in the interview, which helps prevent contamination in the form of interviewers introducing new information. Furthermore, when the NICHD Protocol is used, most initial disclosures of abuse occur in response to open-ended prompts (Lamb et al., 2007a; Sternberg, Lamb, Orbach, Esplin, & Mitchell, 2001b).
Although these field studies involving actual forensic interviews provide evidence in support of using the NICHD Protocol, they cannot make claims about the accuracy of children’s reports. This can only be accomplished by testing the NICHD Protocol in the laboratory as has been done in a few studies. For example, Brown et al. (2013) found that, when interviewed with the NICHD Protocol, 5- to 7-year-olds recalled more accurate details about a staged event in response to invitation prompts than any other type of question (e.g., directive, suggestive), lending support to the protocol’s “funnel” approach to avoid contaminating children’s reports.
7.4.4.4 Concluding remarks about the NICHD Protocol
The NICHD Protocol caters to children’s cognitive and social limitations and addresses many of the challenges faced by children in the investigative interview context. However, interviewer adherence to the NICHD Protocol requires periodic refresher trainings. In fact, Lamb et al. (2002) found that the provision of regular supervision (e.g. group trainings that occurred every month or two over the course of a year) and feedback on interviews was necessary to prevent interviewers from reverting back to relying on option-posing and suggestive questions.
The NICHD Protocol, like the CI, is geared toward obtaining memory accounts from cooperative victims and witnesses. However, there are a number of reasons why children may be reluctant to disclose maltreatment (see Pipe, Lamb, Orbach, & Cederborg, 2007, for a review). For example, children may be told or threatened to keep the wrongdoing a secret (Malloy, Brubacher, & Lamb, 2011; Malloy, Lyon, & Quas, 2007). A “revised” version of the NICHD Protocol was recently developed for use with reluctant witnesses. This protocol emphasises rapport-building and interviewer supportiveness to facilitate children’s disclosure of maltreatment. Specifically, interviewers are encouraged to engage in rapport-building before establishing the ground rules of the interview and to use additional rapport-building techniques. For example, they may express interest and concern for the child by asking how they are and acknowledging that it can be difficult to talk about certain experiences. Interviewers can also use nonverbal behaviours such as smiling and eye contact to encourage the child’s participation in the interview. Hershkowitz, Lamb, and Katz (2014) found that reluctant children who were alleged victims of sexual or physical abuse by family members were more likely to make an allegation of abuse when interviewed with the revised NICHD protocol than with the standard NICHD protocol. Therefore, the revised protocol has shown some promise in interviewing reluctant victims, though additional research is needed.
7.4.5 Elderly Witnesses
The world’s population is aging. According to a recent United Nations report, the nature of this demographic shift is unprecedented in human history. This aging trend has implications for the legal system because many more elderly individuals are becoming victims or witnesses to crime, including abuse or neglect (Acierno et al., 2010; Bennett, Jenkins, & Asif, 2000). In a sample of over-66-year-olds living in private homes in the UK, Biggs, Erens, Doyle, Hall, and Sanchez (2013) found that almost 1 in 10 were mistreated (i.e. victims of financial, psychological, physical, or sexual abuse or neglect) during a one-year period. In the next few decades, gathering information from older eyewitnesses will be increasingly necessary and thus of utmost importance to legal professionals and policymakers. The elderly are considered vulnerable witnesses. In fact, the ABE guidelines recognise their vulnerability and attempt to accommodate them accordingly. For example, the ABE guidelines note that special measures may be taken with elderly eyewitnesses including, but not limited to, taking breaks and conducting the interview over multiple sessions so as not to fatigue the witness.
PHOTO 7.3 Many crimes against the elderly go unreported.
Source: © Oleg Golovnev/Shutterstock
Compared to the extensive body of literature concerning children’s eyewitness capabilities, less research exists concerning the testimonial capabilities of the elderly. Nevertheless, and as we review next, researchers have learned a great deal about factors that affect the elderly’s performance and how to enhance their memory of experienced or witnessed events.
7.4.5.1 Cognitive and social factors affecting the interview performance of elderly witnesses
Children and the elderly – the vulnerable witnesses at opposite ends of the age spectrum – share many characteristics. For example, like child maltreatment cases, many crimes against the elderly go unreported. This may be because feelings of shame or embarrassment limit their desire to tell anyone or because they fear repercussions from others for doing so. Like children, many older adults are also abused by known and trusted perpetrators who are in charge of their care. Thus, like children, feelings of loyalty may prevent disclosure, or victims of elder abuse may lack sufficient contact with other individuals (e.g. those outside the home) who could be disclosure recipients.
Fact finders may be sceptical of the eyewitness credibility of both children and the elderly (see Bornstein, 1995, for a review). Research demonstrates that jurors perceive testimony from older adults as less accurate than testimony from younger adults, perhaps because of widely held stereotypes about the frailty of human memory in old age (Ross, Dunning, Toglia, & Ceci, 1990). However, stereotypes about the elderly may cut both ways. In some experiments, the elderly are also perceived as more accurate, honest, trustworthy and intelligent than younger adults giving testimony (Ross et al., 1990), perhaps because of benevolent stereotypes about the elderly as upstanding citizens. This is similar to a phenomenon concerning child witnesses, namely that young children are typically considered by jurors to be incompetent in terms of memory and suggestibility but honest, whereas older children and adolescents are often considered to be dishonest but competent (Bottoms & Goodman, 1994). Therefore, how jurors perceive the credibility of an elderly eyewitness may depend on whether the particular case at hand emphasises memory accuracy and detail versus honesty. Of importance, the elderly may hold negative beliefs about their own memory abilities, which may affect their memory performance and help explain why they, at times, express less confidence in their memory reports (Yarmey, 1984; Yarmey & Kent, 1980).
Similar to child witnesses, the elderly tend to have relatively poor source monitoring abilities and may misattribute where they learned various information (e.g. from witnessing an event to only hearing about it; Johnson, Hashtroudi, & Lindsay, 1993; Multhaup, de Leonardis, & Johnson, 1999). This may help explain why some studies demonstrate that the elderly are more susceptible than younger adults to post-event misinformation, and more suggestible (Loftus, Levidow, & Duensing, 1992; Mitchell, Johnson, & Mather, 2003). The elderly appear more susceptible to forming false memories, while also demonstrating greater confidence in these false memories (see Jacoby & Rhodes, 2006, for a review).
An extensive body of research documents that cognitive functioning declines with age with noteworthy declines in memory performance (Balota, Dolan, & Ducheck, 2000; Craik & Jennings, 1992). Many studies, though not all, have shown memory deficits in older, compared to younger, adults. Typicall
y older adults provide less complete and less accurate event accounts than younger adults (see Bartlett, 2014, for a review). For example, Gabbert, Memon, and Allan (2003) found that older adults recalled fewer correct details about a simulated crime event than university students. List (1986) examined children’s, young adults’, and older adults’ memories of staged crime videos. Children (10-year-olds) and older adults (over 65) performed similarly in terms of completeness, but the older adults were the least accurate of the three age groups.
Like child witnesses, the accuracy and completeness of memory reports from the elderly are influenced heavily by the manner in which they are tested. Free recall sessions are particularly difficult (see Bornstein, 1995). This suggests that providing retrieval cues and strategies may be especially beneficial for the elderly. Like children they may depend more on external cues to trigger their memory, such as those provided in the CI.
7.4.5.2 Interviewing elderly witnesses
In several studies, researchers have found that using a CI, or a slightly modified CI, improves eyewitness performance among the elderly with typical increases in the quantity and accuracy of information recalled and reductions in the effects of misinformation on recall (e.g., Holliday et al., 2012; Wright & Holliday, 2007). For example, Mello and Fisher (1996) tested older and younger adults’ memories for a videotaped convenience store robbery using a standard police interview, CI, or modified CI. The modified CI limited the opening free recall narration portion and eliminated the “perspective taking” component in light of the elderly’s challenges with these aspects of investigative interviews. Also, interviewers using the modified CI were asked to avoid interruptions, notify the witness that the interview would progress slowly, and use simple wording with all questions. Although results revealed no difference in memory performance between the older and younger adults, the CI enhanced performance more for the older than younger adults. However, the modified CI did not improve performance beyond the regular CI.
Research has also shown that the SAI is beneficial with elderly populations. In one study (Gawrylowicz, Memon, Scoboria, Hope, & Gabbert, 2014), elderly participants improved their immediate recall of a simulated crime event with the SAI and also “transferred” their knowledge to recalling a second event one week later. That is, participants who first received a SAI appeared to learn from this tool and thus performed better when freely recalling a subsequent event without the SAI.
7.4.6 Witnesses with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities
It is imperative that interviewers recognise that no two witnesses are exactly the same. Some witnesses may have an intellectual or developmental disability; in fact, individuals with intellectual disabilities (ID) and individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) are disproportionately likely to experience victimisation and thus be questioned about their experiences (Vig & Kaminer, 2002; Westcott, 1991). Many potential jurors assume that individuals with disabilities cannot provide credible accounts of their experiences (Henry, Ridley, Perry, & Crane, 2011a; Valenti-Hein & Schwartz, 1993), and this may hinder prosecution of their cases. While their cognitive and social deficits may make them more difficult to interview, research shows that individuals with disabilities can provide reliable eyewitness testimony.
7.4.6.1 Cognitive and social factors affecting the interview performance of witnesses with intellectual and developmental disabilities
According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V), individuals with ID have an IQ of approximately 70 or below and display deficits in conceptual (e.g. reading, mathematics), social (e.g. interpersonal skills) and practical (e.g. personal care, independent completion of daily tasks) domains (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). They tend to be more compliant than children without ID and are eager to please others, particularly those in an authority position, which has implications for their suggestibility (Henry, Bettenay, & Carney, 2011b). ID is often comorbid with other developmental disabilities, such as Down syndrome or ASD, and each of these disabilities may present their own challenges for an investigative interviewer. The category of ID is fairly broad, ranging from those with mild to severe cognitive and social impairments, which is important to recognise especially in light of general claims and scepticism about the eyewitness capabilities of affected individuals.
In response to open-ended invitations to talk, individuals with ID often recall fewer event details than individuals without ID of the same age. However, this information tends to be quite accurate (Henry et al., 2011b; Kebbell & Hatton, 1999; Milne, Sharman, Powell, & Mead, 2013; Perlman, Ericson, Esses, & Isaccs, 1994). Several studies suggest that individuals with ID are more suggestible than individuals without ID (Brown, Lewis, & Lamb, 2015; Gudjonsson & Henry, 2003; Henry & Gudjonsson, 2007). They may be more likely to falsely acquiesce to interview questions (Clare & Gudjonsson, 1993; Michel, Gordon, Ornstein, & Simpson, 2000), and change their responses more often to repeated questions (Everington & Fulero, 1999; Henry & Gudjonsson, 2003). Thus, it seems especially important to avoid suggestive questions when questioning individuals with ID, particularly those with moderate ID.
According to the DSM-V, individuals with ASD display marked deficits in social communication and interactions, along with rigid and repetitive behaviours (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). These individuals also tend to lack a theory of mind (an understanding that someone may have a belief other than their own; Baron-Cohen, 2000), may exhibit social anxiety (see MacNeil, Lopes, & Minnes, 2009 for review), and often focus on peripheral details of an event as opposed to extracting the greater meaning or gist (see Happé & Frith, 2006, for a review; Henry et al., 2011b). Affected individuals may have deficits in event memory (see Henry et al., 2011b; Maras & Bowler, 2014 for reviews), though findings have been mixed.
Research has shown that children and adults with ASD may not differ significantly from their same-aged peers without ASD in the accuracy of their event-related recall and their suggestibility (children: Bruck, London, Landa, & Goodman, 2007; McCrory, Henry, & Happé, 2007; adults: Maras & Bowler, 2010, 2012a; North, Russell, & Gudjonsson, 2008; but see Maras, Memon, Lambrechts, & Bowler, 2013). However, in some studies, children with ASD recalled fewer event details than children without ASD (Bruck et al., 2007; McCrory et al., 2007). In contrast, adults with ASD have not differed significantly from adults without ASD in the quantity of event-related details recalled, particularly under certain interview conditions (e.g. a traditional structured interview protocol was used; the physical context of the event was reinstated). Adults with ASD have demonstrated more difficulty recalling correct event details about people and actions than adults without ASD (Maras & Bowler, 2010, 2012b). Research on the event memory of adults with ASD has primarily focused on asking participants to recall picture slides or video clips, and future studies should consider more ecologically valid study designs such as having witnesses describe more complex, experienced events.
7.4.6.2 Interviewing witnesses with intellectual and developmental disabilities
Although some modifications may be needed, empirical studies suggest that the CI and NICHD Protocol are effective methods for interviewing individuals with ID and ASD. For example, Brown and Geiselman (1990) found that, when compared to a control interview, the CI increased the number of correct details that adults with ID recalled, without a concurrent increase in incorrect details recalled. However, the CI also increased the number of confabulations that adults with CI made (see Milne & Bull, 2001). Milne et al. (2013) found that a modified CI (without the “change perspective” instruction) was beneficial for children with severe ID. In fact, use of the CI as opposed to a structured interview (without some of the cognitive components like mental context reinstatement and reverse-order recall) resulted in a 27% increase in the event details these children recalled, with no decrease in accuracy. Gentle, Milne, Powell, and Sharman (2013) found similar benefits of a modified CI with children with moderate and mild ID, and further demonstrated that t
he CI can improve their ability to provide coherent narratives. Brown et al. (2015) examined the recall performance of children with ID when questioned with the NICHD Protocol. Similar to children without ID, children with both mild and moderate ID provided a substantial amount of information and the most accurate information in response to open-ended questions (also see Brown, Lewis, Lamb, & Stephens, 2012).
In a few studies, researchers have tested the CI with individuals with ASD (e.g., Maras & Bowler, 2010). This research shows that the recall of individuals with ASD may be less accurate when interviewed with the CI as opposed to a structured interview that does not include some of the cognitive components. This suggests that the CI may need to be tailored to the characteristics of individuals with ASD, possibly removing certain components that benefit individuals without ASD. For example, the “change perspective” instruction may be ineffective for individuals with ASD because their well-documented deficits in theory of mind make it difficult to consider another individual’s perspective. However, other components of the CI may be particularly beneficial for individuals with ASD. For instance, Mattison, Dando, and Ormerod (2015) found that having children with ASD draw a sketch following an event may facilitate their accurate recall of event details. Overall, the research on interviewing witnesses with intellectual and developmental disabilities is in its infancy, and future studies should continue to examine how to best harness the interviewing techniques that we have for use with these populations.
Forensic Psychology Page 36
