“Tell me more about this…”: An examination of the efficacy of follow-up open questions following an initial account.

Kontogianni, Feni; Hope, Lorraine; Taylor, Paul; Vrij, A and Gabbert, Fiona. 2020. “Tell me more about this…”: An examination of the efficacy of follow-up open questions following an initial account. Applied Cognitive Psychology, pp. 1-12. ISSN 0888-4080 [Article]

[img]
Preview
Text
Kontogianni et al., 2020, ACP.pdf - Published Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.

Download (925kB) | Preview

Abstract or Description

In 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.

Item Type:

Article

Identification Number (DOI):

https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3675

Additional Information:

Funding information: University of Portsmouth, Grant/Award Number: N009614

Keywords:

accuracy-informativeness trade-off, eliciting information, follow-up questions, timeline technique

Related URLs:

Departments, Centres and Research Units:

Psychology
Psychology > Forensic Psychology Unit

Dates:

DateEvent
6 April 2020Accepted
11 April 2020Published

Item ID:

28393

Date Deposited:

29 Apr 2020 11:14

Last Modified:

29 Apr 2020 17:27

Peer Reviewed:

Yes, this version has been peer-reviewed.

URI:

http://research.gold.ac.uk/id/eprint/28393

View statistics for this item...

Edit Record Edit Record (login required)