The enhanced cognitive interview: expressions of uncertainty,motivation and its relation with report accuracy

The Enhanced Cognitive Interview (ECI) is one of the most widely studied and used methods to interview witnesses. However, ECI research has mainly focused on increasing report size and somewhat overlooked how to improve and evaluate report accuracy. No study evaluated if witnesses’ spontaneous expressions of uncertainty are accurate metacognitive judgments, nor if witnesses’ motivation during the interview affects report accuracy. This study examined how witnesses’ judgments of recall ‘uncertainty’ and their motivation perception could relate to report accuracy. Forty-four psychology students watched a mock robbery video recording and were interviewed 48 hours later with either the Portuguese version of the ECI or a Structured Interview (SI). Afterward, participants’ motivation was assessed and items of information were classified as ‘certainties’ or ‘uncertainties’. Results suggest that our ECI protocol was effective, since participants interviewed with the ECI produced more information without compromising accuracy. ‘Uncertainties’ were less accurate than ‘certainties’, and their exclusion raised overall, ECI, and SI, accuracy. More motivated participants had better recall accuracy. Accounting for witnesses’ motivation and spontaneous verbal expressions of uncertainty may be effective and time-saving procedures to increase accuracy. These are key points that professionals and researchers should consider.     

Mental disorders and cognitive impairment in ageing offenders

The aim of our study was to identify psychiatric and cognitive disorders among older prison inmates and to investigate whether there is an association between mental disorders and cognitive impairment. 138 men aged 50 and over were recruited in seven French prisons (Group 1) and 138 men aged 50 and over were recruited from the general public (Group 2). Participants were assessed using the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview, the Mini Mental State Examination, and the Frontal Assessment Battery. The results reveal very significant differences in the incidence of mental disorders and in cognitive performance between the two groups. However, there does not appear to be a significant link between mental disorders and cognitive performance. We discuss the risk factors for mental disorders and cognitive impairment. We raise particularly the issue of depression, which is the most common pathology in this population and which is generally associated with the risk of suicide.     

Wrongful convictions and claims of false or misleading forensic evidence

The results are reported of a study to examine case factors associated with 732 wrongful convictions classified by the National Registry of Exonerations as being associated with “False or Misleading Forensic Evidence.” A forensic error typology has been developed to provide a structure for the categorization and coding of factors relating to misstatements in forensic science reports; errors of individualization or classification; testimony errors; issues relating to trials and officers of the court; and evidence handling and reporting issues. This study, which included the analysis of 1391 forensic examinations, demonstrates that most errors related to forensic evidence are not identification or classification errors by forensic scientists. When such errors are made, they are frequently associated with incompetent or fraudulent examiners, disciplines with an inadequate scientific foundation, or organizational deficiencies in training, management, governance, or resources. More often, forensic reports or testimony miscommunicate results, do not conform to established standards, or fail to provide appropriate limiting information. Just as importantly, actors within the broader criminal justice system—but not under the purview of any forensic science organization—may contribute to errors that may be related to the forensic evidence. System issues include reliance on presumptive tests without confirmation by a forensic laboratory, use of independent experts outside the administrative control of public laboratories, inadequate defense, and suppression or misrepresentation of forensic evidence by investigators or prosecutors. In approximately half of wrongful convictions analyzed, improved technology, testimony standards, or practice standards may have prevented a wrongful conviction at the time of trial.     

Buttressing regulation of cognitive enhancement devices with principles of harm reduction

Maslen and colleagues offer an excellent model for regulating cognitive enhancement devices (CEDs), and we largely endorse their approach of extending medical device policy to include CEDs. Maslen et al. argue that since the risks and benefits of CEDs can be identified, consumers are best placed to evaluate the impact of these effects on their own wellbeing: ‘experts are to assess what the risks are, the consumer how much they matter’. In principle, we agree: consumers should be allowed to decide what risks are worth taking, but the situation is somewhat more complicated, for the evidence that consumers are in a strong position to evaluate the many risks associated with CED use is lacking. Indeed, a glance at online forums on CEDs suggests that undue risks are already being taken. Importantly, given the ease with which devices can be built using easily obtainable parts, overly tough regulation will not effectively curtail use, but rather push it underground. For these reasons, we suggest that any regulatory framework be buttressed by principles of harm reduction, providing real-world users with expert-backed recommendations for safe use. We argue for the development of tools that facilitate this dialogue, while recognizing the challenges in so doing.     

Regulation of cognitive enhancement devices: commentary

Maslen et al. (2013) have provided us with a comprehensive overview of the current legislation regulating non-clinical cognitive enhancement devices (CEDs) in the European Union and have proposed a specific model whereby CEDs would be regulated in the same way as medical devices. An alternative model would be to require manufacturers to quantify risks only. Irrespective of the purported ‘benefits’ of a product, this would allow the consumer freedom of choice to use the product at their will and allow the periodic review of worthwhile indications and unexpected adverse events. Although this departs from the standard Cochrane-type assessment, it takes into account the facts that (i) the evaluation of clinically used cognitive enhancement techniques may not be as rigorous as one might expect, (ii) variations and case-by-case use might be widespread, and (iii) independent variables of significance and useful endpoints may not be obvious ab initio. We consider cerebrospinal fluid diversion techniques which are widely used clinically to enhance cognition in patients with normal pressure hydrocephalus despite any large-scale clinical studies demonstrating substantial benefit, and the real risks of paralysis and death from these invasive procedures. The risks of CEDs which have been available for some time need to be kept in perspective: are the risks really more than using conventional cognitive enhancement techniques such as imbibing too caffeinated drinks? Furthermore, the loss of Europe as a market for CEDs which do not comply with the proposed regulatory model implies a potential gain in the market for other parts of the world. This could impact on the ability of companies in Europe being able to compete in an evolving market demand for CEDs. Legislation to regulate CEDs should be guided by the principle of ‘do no harm’ and allow for innovation and competition.     

罪犯教育改造现状认知实证研究

某省监狱683名罪犯对目前教育改造现状认知持较为肯定态度,特别是"三课教育"、文明管理与心理矫治,70%以上的罪犯认同或认为有帮助。罪犯在个别教育认知上出现分化,16.3%的罪犯认为开展得好,13.8%的罪犯认为没开展。近半数罪犯认为监狱人文精神一般。罪犯服刑时间与其教育改造现状认知显著相关,表现为随服刑时间推移对教育改造工作认知评价趋向负面。服刑一年以上与一年以下罪犯在教育改造认知评价上存在显著差异,表现为前者负性认知显著地多于后者。     

Techniques in Innovative Policy Making: Example of National Rural Employment Guarantee Act in India

The problem of social ills such as unemployment, poverty, and accelerating pace of rural-urban migration is not only enormous in magnitude, but also complex by nature in developing countries. This article introduces an innovative regulatory approach that addresses the complexity and scale of such problems. An analytical and decision-making model is presented. This model prescribes reflecting on two or more problems simultaneously. Such an approach is expected to create a fresh opportunity for policy makers and scholars in solving problem scenarios, bringing their vantage point to bear on pressing social matters. The model presented in this article is applied to analyze the NREGA or National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 in India. This Act represents a novel approach to policy-making and demonstrates the positive role governments can play in labor markets. The design, implementation, and promising initial results clearly challenge existing wisdom on how to make effective policy decisions. The framework presented in the article best explains various facets of this remarkable policy and shows how governments can intervene in the labor markets and correct for imperfections. Pioneering future applications to other social and economic challenges are suggested. Also, implications for research and policy are provided.     

Suggestibility and children with mild learning disabilities: The use of the cognitive interview

Abstract

The aims of this paper were firstly to identify any differences in the level of suggestibility between 20 7–9-year-old children with mild learning disabilities and 20 children with average academic ability using the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale 2 (GSS2) and, secondly, to note the impact of the cognitive interview on the response patterns of children with mild learning disabilities.

On the GSS2, average academic ability children recalled significantly more correct details than children with mild learning disabilities. There was no significant difference between the two groups of children on distortions, fabrications, total confabulations or on any of the four measures of suggestibility.

In the second part of the study, 38 children with mild learning disabilities watched a filmed event and then were interviewed using either a standard or a modified version of the cognitive interview. Following this, all participants were asked specific questions, some of which incorporated misleading information. One week later each participant was re-questioned. This time critical questions were included about the truth of the presuppositions introduced in the initial interview session. It was found that the cognitive interview elicited significantly more correct and incorrect details than a standard interview with no significant difference in fabrications. Use of the cognitive interview did not significantly affect susceptibility to subsequent misleading suggestions.