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

Consistency of False Accusations

0102030405060708090

100

Accusers Refusers Retractors

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)

Acknowledgements

• Co-authors ▫ Elizabeth Cauffman ▫ Alison Clarke-Stewart ▫ Elizabeth Loftus

• Research Assistants Brian Yamada Kelsey Meagher Chris Hagan Jacqueline Messerschmidt Christina Tajalli Jacob Barak Christina Tam Quoc Nguyen Deborah Hahn Troy Campbell Kaycie Craib Kelly Maurice