ABSTRACT

The current study evaluated the efficacy of free-recall, cognitive instruction and closed-ended questions with students (N = 50; ages 6–18) with developmental disabilities. After watching a magic show wherein the magician made a major error, the students were asked by the magician to keep the transgression a secret. Next, students were interviewed using the Cognitive Interview (CI: free-recall, cognitive instruction and closed-ended questions) or a Standard Interview (SI: free-recall and closed-ended questions) by an unfamiliar researcher whereby their statement quality (statement consistency, veracity and disclosure forthcomingness) and quantity (number of words, transgression details and events recalled) were evaluated. The CI group disclosed significantly more total words and events than the SI group, without compromising testimony consistency; while not significant, descriptive differences in transgression details were found between interview groups. Nevertheless, there were no significant interview group differences in disclosure honesty or forthcomingness. Truth-tellers provided the most forthcoming and detailed statements on the free-recall question, irrespective of interview type. Conversely, lie-tellers rarely discussed the alleged transgression, and primarily lied on the final direct closed-ended question. These results suggest that the CI can be effective with students with developmental disabilities for increasing eyewitness memory recall.

摘要

目前的研究评估了学生自由回忆、认知教学和封闭式问题的效果（N = 50; 6-18 岁）有发育障碍。在观看了魔术师犯下重大错误的魔术表演后，魔术师要求学生们对违规行为保密。接下来，不熟悉的研究人员使用认知访谈（CI：自由回忆、认知指导和封闭式问题）或标准访谈（SI：自由回忆和封闭式问题）对学生进行采访，由此他们的陈述质量（陈述一致性、真实性和披露意愿）和数量（字数、违规细节和召回事件）进行了评估。在不影响证词一致性的情况下，CI 组比 SI 组披露了更多的词和事件；虽然不显着，但在访谈组之间发现了违规细节的描述性差异。尽管如此，在披露的诚实度或坦诚度方面没有显着的访谈组差异。不论采访类型如何，真相讲述者都对自由回忆问题提供了最直接和最详细的陈述。相反，说谎者很少讨论所谓的违规行为，主要是在最后的直接封闭式问题上撒谎。这些结果表明 CI 可以对有发育障碍的学生有效地增加目击者的记忆力。