Abstract
SummaryIn information gathering interviews, follow‐up questions are asked to clarify and extend initial witness accounts. Across two experiments, we examined the efficacy of open‐ended questions following an account about a multi‐perpetrator event. In Experiment 1, 50 mock‐witnesses used the timeline technique or a free recall format to provide an initial account. Although follow‐up questions elicited new information (18–22% of the total output) across conditions, the response accuracy (60%) was significantly lower than that of the initial account (83%). In Experiment 2 (N = 60), half of the participants received pre‐questioning instructions to monitor accuracy when responding to follow‐up questions. New information was reported (21–22% of the total output) across conditions, but despite using pre‐questioning instructions, response accuracy (75%) was again lower than the spontaneously reported information (87.5%). Follow‐up open‐ended questions prompt additional reporting; however, practitioners should be cautious to corroborate the accuracy of new reported details.
Highlights
In both intelligence and criminal investigation contexts, interviewers commonly ask follow-up questions to elicit additional information, and to clarify reported details and inconsistencies (Evans & Fisher, 2011; Shepherd & Griffiths, 2013)
After requesting an initial free narrative about the event, interviewers can prompt for further information by using various memory-enhancing techniques, including a focused-retrieval phase where open questions are used to expand on aspects of the initial account (Fisher, 1995; Fisher & Geiselman, 1992)
The results of Experiment 1 show that a sizeable amount of additional information was elicited through follow-up questions, representing 18 and 22% of the total information reported in the timeline and free recall conditions, respectively
Summary
In both intelligence and criminal investigation contexts, interviewers commonly ask follow-up questions to elicit additional information, and to clarify reported details and inconsistencies (Evans & Fisher, 2011; Shepherd & Griffiths, 2013). Reported information can be highly accurate but witnesses often omit critical details in their reports that may be useful in an investigation, interviewers may need to use follow-up questions (Hope, Gabbert, & Fraser, 2013; Roberts & Higham, 2002; Smeets, Candel, & Merckelbach, 2004). Follow-up questions to extend and clarify witness accounts are recommended in evidence-based interviewing protocols such as the Cognitive Interview (CI; Fisher & Geiselman, 1992). Building on the principles of the CI, recommendations for practice have been made about the use of appropriate prompts such as questions that start with “Tell,” “Explain,” and “Describe”
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
