Encouraging eyewitnesses to falsely corroborate allegations: effects of rapport-building and incriminating evidence

Building rapport involves developing a harmonious relationship with another person and conveying understanding and acceptance towards that person. Law enforcement officers use rapport-building to help gather information from witnesses. But could rapport-building, in some situations, work to contaminate eyewitness testimony? Research shows that compelling incriminating evidence can lead people to corroborate false accusations made against another person. We investigated whether rapport-building – when combined with either Verbal or Verbal+Visual false evidence – might boost these corroboration rates. Subjects took part in a pseudo-gambling task, in which their counterpart was falsely accused of cheating. Using a 2 (Rapport: Rapport vs. No-rapport) × 2 (Incriminating Evidence: Verbal vs. Verbal+Visual) between-subjects design, we persuaded subjects to corroborate the accusation. We found that both rapport and verbal+visual incriminating evidence increased the compliance rate. Even when the incriminating evidence was only presented verbally, rapport-building subjects were almost three times as likely to corroborate a false accusation compared to subjects who did not undergo rapport-building. Our results suggest that although there is widespread and strong support for using rapport-building in interviews, doing so also has the potential to aggravate the contaminating power of suggestive interview techniques

The effects of alcohol intoxication on accuracy and the confidence-accuracy relationship in photographic simultaneous lineups

(Summary) Acute alcohol intoxication during encoding can impair subsequent identification accuracy, but results across studies have been inconsistent, with studies often finding no effect. Little is also known about how alcohol intoxication affects the identification confidence-accuracy relationship. We randomly assigned women (N = 153) to consume alcohol (dosed to achieve a 0.08% blood alcohol content) or tonic water, controlling for alcohol expectancy. Women then participated in an interactive hypothetical sexual assault scenario and, 24 hours or 7 days later, attempted to identify the assailant from a perpetrator present or a perpetrator absent simultaneous line-up and reported their decision confidence. Overall, levels of identification accuracy were similar across the alcohol and tonic water groups. However, women who had consumed tonic water as opposed to alcohol identified the assailant with higher confidence on average. Further, calibration analyses suggested that confidence is predictive of accuracy regardless of alcohol consumption. The theoretical and applied implications of our results are discussed

Basic and Applied Issues in Eyewitness Research: A Münsterberg Centennial Retrospective

Whether memory research should emphasize fundamental psychological theory in well-controlled laboratory settings (i.e. “basic” research) or practical questions in naturalistic settings (i.e. “applied” research) is a recurrent question in the field. The debate became especially prominent with the advent of the “everyday memory movement” in the 1980s (e.g. Banaji & Crowder, 1989; Neisser, 1978, 1991), but it dates back to the origins of experimental psychology itself (i.e. the basic approach espoused by Wundt and Titchener vs. the more applied perspective taken by Külpe, Ebbinghaus, Binet, James and others). The debate is particularly relevant to the subarea of eyewitness memory, which has such obvious implications for the legal system. Hugo Münsterberg, who was one of the earliest researchers on eyewitness memory, is probably the first figure to advocate strongly for a wider reliance by the courts on psychological research (Münsterberg, 1908; others, such as Binet and Freud, made similar, albeit less forceful, recommendations). Münsterberg’s efforts were largely rebuffed (Wigmore, 1909), and since that time, there have been repeated calls for the courts to take eyewitness research (indeed, all social science research) more seriously, accompanied by a range of judicial responses ranging from ready acceptance to outright rejection (Monahan & Walker, 2005). Nor are all psychologists of one mind on this issue. Indeed, even Münsterberg himself, who is widely regarded as one of the founders of applied psychology, at times urged caution in applying psychological research findings to real-world problems (Münsterberg, 1898; see Benjamin, 2006)