Nudging eyewitnesses: the effect of social influence on recalling witnessed events

IF 2.1 Q1 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY
Kirk Luther, Zak Keeping, Brent Snook, Hannah Marie Louise de Almeida, Weyam Fahmy, Alexia Smith, Tianshuang Han
{"title":"Nudging eyewitnesses: the effect of social influence on recalling witnessed events","authors":"Kirk Luther, Zak Keeping, Brent Snook, Hannah Marie Louise de Almeida, Weyam Fahmy, Alexia Smith, Tianshuang Han","doi":"10.1108/jcp-06-2023-0042","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nThe purpose of this study is to contribute to the literature on information elicitation. The authors investigated the impact of social influence strategies on eyewitness recall performance. Specifically, the authors examined the effect of social influence techniques (Cialdini, 2007) on recall performance (Experiment 1) and conducted a follow-up experiment to examine the incremental effect of social proof on the report everything cognitive interview mnemonic (Experiment 2).\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nParticipants watched a video depicting vandalism (Experiment 1: N = 174) or a verbal altercation (Experiment 2: N = 128) and were asked to recall the witnessed event. Experiment 1: Participants were assigned randomly to one of six conditions: control (open-ended prompt), engage and explain (interview ground rules), consistency (signing an agreement to work diligently), reciprocity (given water and food), authority (told of interviewer’s training) and social proof (shown transcript from an exemplar participant). Experiment 2: The authors used a 2 (social proof: present, absent) × 2 (report everything: present, absent) between-participants design.\n\n\nFindings\nAcross both experiments, participants exposed to the social proof tactic (i.e. compared to a model exemplar) spoke longer and recalled more correct details than participants not exposed to the social proof tactic. In Experiment 2, participants interviewed with the report everything mnemonic also spoke longer, recalled more correct details, more incorrect details and provided slightly more confabulations than those not interviewed with the report everything mnemonic.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nThe findings have practical value for police investigators and other professionals who conduct interviews (e.g. military personnel, doctors obtaining information from patients). Interviewers can incorporate social proof in their interviewing practices to help increase the amount and accuracy of information obtained.\n","PeriodicalId":44013,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Criminal Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Criminal Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/jcp-06-2023-0042","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this study is to contribute to the literature on information elicitation. The authors investigated the impact of social influence strategies on eyewitness recall performance. Specifically, the authors examined the effect of social influence techniques (Cialdini, 2007) on recall performance (Experiment 1) and conducted a follow-up experiment to examine the incremental effect of social proof on the report everything cognitive interview mnemonic (Experiment 2). Design/methodology/approach Participants watched a video depicting vandalism (Experiment 1: N = 174) or a verbal altercation (Experiment 2: N = 128) and were asked to recall the witnessed event. Experiment 1: Participants were assigned randomly to one of six conditions: control (open-ended prompt), engage and explain (interview ground rules), consistency (signing an agreement to work diligently), reciprocity (given water and food), authority (told of interviewer’s training) and social proof (shown transcript from an exemplar participant). Experiment 2: The authors used a 2 (social proof: present, absent) × 2 (report everything: present, absent) between-participants design. Findings Across both experiments, participants exposed to the social proof tactic (i.e. compared to a model exemplar) spoke longer and recalled more correct details than participants not exposed to the social proof tactic. In Experiment 2, participants interviewed with the report everything mnemonic also spoke longer, recalled more correct details, more incorrect details and provided slightly more confabulations than those not interviewed with the report everything mnemonic. Originality/value The findings have practical value for police investigators and other professionals who conduct interviews (e.g. military personnel, doctors obtaining information from patients). Interviewers can incorporate social proof in their interviewing practices to help increase the amount and accuracy of information obtained.
裸体目击者:社会影响对回忆目击事件的影响
目的本研究的目的是为信息启发的文献研究做出贡献。作者调查了社会影响策略对目击者回忆表现的影响。明确地作者研究了社会影响技术(Cialdini,2007)对回忆表现的影响(实验1),并进行了一项后续实验,以检验社会证明对报告一切认知访谈助记符的增量影响(实验2)。设计/方法/方法参与者观看了一段描述故意破坏行为的视频(实验1:N=174)或言语争吵(实验2:N=128),并被要求回忆所目睹的事件。实验1:参与者被随机分配到六个条件中的一个:控制(开放式提示)、参与和解释(面试基本规则)、一致性(签署勤奋工作的协议)、互惠性(给水和食物)、权威性(告知面试官的培训)和社会证明(展示一名示例参与者的成绩单)。实验2:作者在参与者之间使用了2(社会证明:在场,不在场)×2(报告一切:在场,缺席)的设计。发现在这两个实验中,暴露于社会证明策略(即与模型样本相比)的参与者比未暴露于社会验证策略的参与者说得更长,回忆起更多正确的细节。在实验2中,与未接受报告-所有记忆法采访的参与者相比,接受报告-一切记忆法访问的参与者说话时间更长,回忆起更多正确的细节,更多不正确的细节和提供更多的会话。原创性/价值这些发现对警方调查人员和其他进行访谈的专业人员(如军事人员、从患者那里获取信息的医生)具有实际价值。面试官可以将社会证明纳入他们的面试实践中,以帮助提高所获得信息的数量和准确性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Criminal Psychology
Journal of Criminal Psychology CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY-
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
9
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信