False Accusations in an Investigative Context: Differences between Suggestible and Non-suggestible Witnesses
Suzanne Kaasa, Ph.D. March 19, 2012 Presentation for RAND Corporation
Research Areas and Methods • Justice System
▫ Procedural Justice ▫ Evaluation
• National Security ▫ Insider threat ▫ Terrorist propaganda
• Quantitative and Qualitative ▫ Experimental manipulations ▫ Structured and semi-structured interviews ▫ Surveys ▫ Content analysis
False Allegations in Real Investigations
(Garven, Wood, Malpass, & Shaw, 1998)
•Report of possible abuse
•Multiple intense, high pressure, leading interviews with children
•Fantastical allegations of severe abuse
•Daycare workers initially charged with hundreds of counts of abuse
•Charges ultimately dropped/hung juries due to lack of corroboration
Research to Inform Policy and Practice
• Investigations ▫ Methods decrease witness suggestibility ▫ Recommendations and best practices
• Expert testimony
▫ Educating the judge/jury about factors that increase or decrease suggestibility
▫ Inform assessments of witness credibility
(Lamb et al., 1998; Loftus & Ketcham, 1992; Pipe et al., 2004; Raskin & Esplin, 1991 )
Prior Research Approaches
• Assumption: false accusations are due to suggestibility • Purpose: identify risk factors for suggestibility
• Context: research rather than investigative
• Consequences: minor or none
(Bruck & Melnyk, 2004; Ceci & Bruck, 1993; Lamb, Sternberg, & Esplin, 1998; Pipe, Lamb, Orbach & Esplin, 2004; Raskin & Esplin, 1991)
Current Research Approach
• Purpose: determine the association between suggestibility and false accusations
▫ Suggestibility: make false statements ▫ False accusation: making a formal complaint
• Context: investigative
• Consequences: serious consequence (i.e., innocent person would lose their job)
Research Questions
• How likely are suggestible vs. non-suggestible individuals to make a false accusation?
• Do suggestible and non-suggestible individuals make false accusations for different reasons?
• How many individuals would retract their false accusation if given an opportunity to do so?
Participants
• 129 participants
• Mean age = 19
• 72% female
• 53% Caucasian, 41% Asian, 3% Latino, 3% Other
Study Design
• Health and Personality Cover Story ▫ Lab visit
• Investigation Cover Story ▫ Interview 1 ▫ Interview 2
• Debriefing
Note: no human beings were harmed in the making of this study.
Lab Visit
• 1-hour lab session at university
• Female research assistant (Lab RA)
• Cognitive tests, personality measures, physical measurements ▫ Blood pressure ▫ Height & weight ▫ Hip & waist ▫ Skinfold
Interview #1
• Approximately 1 month after Lab Visit
• Male “lab supervisor”
I’ve received some complaints from other participants in the study about [Lab RA], and I’d like to talk to you about what happened in your session and what you remember about [Lab RA’s] behavior...
Suggestibility
• Leading questions
I’d especially like to talk to you about the physical measures part of the session…the other participants told me that [Lab RA] touched them in a way that made them feel uncomfortable when she was taking these measurements. Did this happen to you?
• High pressure
Are you sure? I know this happened a few weeks ago, so why don’t you think about it for a minute?
(e.g., Bruck et al., 1997; Garven et al., 2000; Lamb et al., 1997; Lepore & Sesco, 1994; Peterson et al., 2007; Thompson et al., 1997; Roediger et al., 2001)
False Accusations
• Asks participant to sign complaint against Lab RA
I don’t want to keep [Lab RA] around if she’s making people feel uncomfortable or hurting them. I have official complaints about her from several other people, but I need a few more before I can remove her from this part of the study. Would you be willing to be added to the list? Then I can stop her from running sessions with other participants.
Interview #2
• Approximately 2 weeks after Interview #1
• Re-measured suggestibility and false accusations
• Lower pressure and more neutral tone
Can you tell me about when [Lab RA] took your height and weight?...Did [Lab RA] make any inappropriate comments?
Coding Suggestibility • Subjective coding of overall suggestibility
▫ Inter-rater reliability: kappas = 1.00 and .97 • Non-suggestible: consistently denied inappropriate
behavior
• Suggestible: described inappropriate behavior
▫ e.g., “I was stripped down to my boxers eventually.”
▫ Specific statements were verified as false by checking video recording
Coding False Accusations
• Signed or did not sign complaint at each interview
• Reasons for decision
▫ Chose to sign to help protect other subjects
▫ Chose to sign because they disliked the Lab RA’s behavior during their own session
▫ Inter-rater reliability: kappas = 1.00 and .98
0
10
20
30
40
50
Suggestible False Accusation
Percent of Participants who were Suggestible or Made a False Accusation at Either Interview
Percent of Participants who made a False Accusation
0102030405060708090
100
Interview 1 Interview 2
SuggestibleNon-Suggestible
Interview 1: χ2(1, N = 128) = 24.96, p < .001, Cramer’s V = .44 Interview 2: χ2(1, N = 120) = 9.7, p = .002, Cramer’s V = .28
Percent of False Accusations Made by Participants
0102030405060708090
100
Interview 1 Interview 2
SuggestibleNon-Suggestible
Reasons for Making a False Accusation
0102030405060708090
100
Help Peers Disliked Lab RA
SuggestibleNon-Suggestible
χ2 (1, N = 49) = 6.9, p = .009, Cramer’s V = .38 χ2 (1, N = 49) = 3.6, p = .06, Cramer’s V = .27
Suggestibility of Accusers, Refusers, and Retractors
0102030405060708090
100
Accusers Refusers Retractors
SuggestibleNon-suggestible
χ2(2, N = 120) = 20.67, p < .001, Cramer’s V = .42
Discussion: Different Pathways to False Accusations
• Suggestible participants ▫ ambiguous personal experiences ▫ memory distortion and desire for consistency ▫ obedience to authority
• Non-suggestible participants ▫ ambiguous peer experiences ▫ social proof and situational norms ▫ perceived social responsibility
(Cialdini, 2009; Latane & Darley, 1968; Latane & Nida, 1981; Loftus, 2005; Milgram, 1974; Postmes & Spears, 1998)
Implications for the Justice System
• Investigations ▫ Caution regarding perceptions of responsibility for
protecting others ▫ Consider offering neutral opportunities for retraction
• Expert Testimony
▫ Suggestible witness are likely at increased risk for making false accusations
▫ Non-suggestible witnesses may also make false accusations, but likely for different reasons
Limitations and Future Research Directions
• Interviews conducted against best practice guidelines
• Investigation in organizational rather than justice system context
• Lab RA and Interviewer genders
• College sample
(Lamb, Sternberg, Esplin, Hershkowitz, & Orbach, 1997)