Dr Hayley Cullen

Purpose: Post-event information (PEI) may distort eyewitness memory and lead to erroneous eyewitness testimonies. This paper aims to explore whether factors such as volitional engagement with PEI (e.g. choice to engage with a co-witness) and memory distrust influence misinformation acceptance and the perceived credibility of a co-witness. Design/methodology/approach: Participants (n = 223) completed the Memory Distrust Scale and then watched a short mock crime video. Thereafter, two-thirds of the participants were asked whether they would prefer or not to listen to a co-witness' account of the witnessed event (choice condition), and one-third of the participants did not have the choice (control condition). Every participant listened to the co-witness account (which contained items of misinformation); thus, those who preferred to listen to the testimony were in the choice-yes (i.e., volition) condition and those who preferred not to listen were in the choice-no (i.e., non-volition) condition. Finally, participants completed a cued recall task assessing their memory of the video and acceptance of misinformation. They also provided ratings to establish the perceived credibility of the co-witness. Findings: The results indicated that neither volition nor memory distrust influenced misinformation acceptance. However, those who preferred to listen to the testimony (i.e., the choice-yes condition) perceived the co-witness as more credible than those in the choice-no or control conditions. Practical implications: The findings suggest that witnesses are susceptible to misinformation regardless of their willingness to engage with or avoid PEI. Further implications and future research directions are discussed. Originality/value: To the best of the authors' knowledge, this study is the first to investigate the role of volition and memory distrust as a trait in eyewitnesses tendency to engage with or avoid post-event information. The research explores whether these mechanisms impact upon memory conformity and perceived co-witness credibility.

It is possible that eyewitnesses may not notice crimes when focused on something else due to "inattentional blindness" (IB). However, it is unclear how witnesses who experience IB will be perceived by jurors, and what factors may influence these perceptions. In study 1, mock jurors read a transcript of an assault crime, in which one witness noticed the assault and another witness did not (i.e. experienced IB). It was found that the witness who experienced IB was perceived as less credible than the witness who saw the crime. In study 2, the same trial was manipulated, such that the witnesses were either civilians or police officers, the witness who experienced IB was familiar with the defendant or not, and an expert witness provided testimony on IB or not. It was again found that the witness who experienced IB was perceived as less credible compared to the witness who saw the crime. Participants' beliefs about IB differed depending on the presence of an expert, witness role, and witness familiarity with the defendant, but these beliefs did not translate to how the IB witness was perceived. The findings highlight the negative legal implications that may arise when witnesses (particularly civilians) experience IB for a crime.

Victims, witnesses, and suspects of crime are frequently intoxicated by Alcohol or Other Drugs (AOD) during the event. How intoxication is perceived by investigating officers, and the manner in which this is handled during interview procedures, can affect the quality of information obtained and therefore investigative outcomes. Various factors are likely to contribute to how intoxication is handled during the investigation of a crime, including standard procedures, familiarity with the effects of different substances, and cultural attitudes. While findings with respect to the effect of different substances on memory are still emerging, it is important to investigate whether police beliefs are consistent with available evidence. In this study, Australian and Indonesian police officers were surveyed about their perceptions of memory accuracy and credibility of victims and witnesses intoxicated with various substances (e.g. alcohol, cannabis, amphetamines, and opioids). A higher proportion of Australian police identified larger negative memory effects associated with alcohol intoxication. At the same time, Indonesian police were found to be more likely to report that intoxication with alcohol would make a victim or witness less credible. With regard to timing, across multiple substances, larger proportions of Australian police reported believing that information obtained from witnesses that were still intoxicated would be more accurate than if interviewed after they became sober. It is concluded that, in order to rectify misconceptions about the impact of AOD intoxication on memory and improve investigative practices, both Australian and Indonesian police would benefit from additional training on the effects of intoxication.

Research into juror perceptions regarding the impact of intoxication on eyewitness memory and credibility is scarce for substances other than alcohol. However, jurors are frequently told to draw on their personal beliefs and experience with intoxicating substances to infer their impact on the case. It is therefore important to investigate laypeople's perceptions regarding witness and victim intoxication across a range of substances, and whether these perceptions are associated with substance familiarity. Participants (n = 470) completed a survey assessing familiarity and use of different substances, as well as perceptions regarding effects on the memory and credibility of intoxicated victims and witnesses. While participants most frequently reported believing that alcohol, hallucinogens, and polysubstance use of alcohol and cannabis have large negative effects on memory, they more frequently reported that they do not know the extent to which cannabis and cocaine affect memory. In addition, attitudes were found to vary based on substance familiarity. Differences with respect to the perceived impact on memory and credibility of various substances can have relevance to court proceedings, particularly in terms of voir dire procedures, jury instructions, and whether an expert witness is required to educate the court on the impacts of different forms of intoxication.

Psychological research has been pivotal in influencing the way police forces globally approach and undertake criminal investigations. Increasing psychological research in recent years has led to the development of best-practice guidelines for conducting police investigations, across a number of key areas of criminal investigation. For example, procedures for creating and conducting lineups as recommended by the American Psychology-Law Society, and the UK-developed PEACE model for investigative interviewing, have both been of influence in Australia. However, the extent to which these evidence-based recommendations have been incorporated into policing practice within Australia is unclear. In this article, we conducted an exploratory review of publicly available policing documents within Australian states and territories, to determine the extent to which best practice lineup identification and investigative interviewing procedures have been adopted into police practice. The review revealed that for lineup identification procedures, many of the basic recommendations for conducting lineups were not incorporated into publicly available policing manuals. For investigative interviewing, it appeared on the surface that elements of the PEACE model were implemented within most Australian jurisdictions, albeit this was often not explicitly stated within policing documents. A key issue identified was a lack of (understandable) public transparency of policing procedure, as a number of Australian jurisdictions failed to have publicly available policing manuals or handbooks against which to evaluate their procedures. Therefore, we argue that there is a need for better collaboration between researchers and law enforcement in order to achieve evidence-based, transparent policing within Australia.

Crime re-enactments broadcast on television encourage witnesses to provide information regarding unsolved crimes. However, given that eyewitness memory can be altered through exposure to post-event information, it is possible that crime re-enactments may influence the memory of eyewitnesses. The current studies examined the effects of crime re-enactments on eyewitness memory. In two experiments (Experiment 1 with a distractor task, Experiment 2 without a distractor task), participants were shown one of three versions of a crime video that differed in their ambiguity. One week later half of the participants viewed a crime re-enactment. All participants then completed a guided free- and cued-recall task regarding the original event. Across both studies, exposure to the re-enactment did not improve eyewitness memory; instead, participants who viewed the re-enactment were more likely to accept the misinformation in the re-enactment. The findings shed light on potential issues with using crime re-enactments to elicit eyewitness accounts.