1. Use of a Hybrid Interview Method to Retrieve Memories Created During Decision Making
Dana e. hirn, ronald p. fisher, & rolando n. carol
Florida international university

2. Goals of the Current Research
Create a novel interview method to elicit the maximum amount of information for memories of decisions
Examine the effectiveness of this interview method in a variety of ways in a controlled setting

3. Critical Decision Method
Gather information from decision makers about their cognitive processes when they assess situations, decide on a course of action, and follow through on their decisions (Crandall, Klein, & Hoffman, 2006).

4. Cognitive Interview
An interviewing technique that uses concepts of social dynamics, memory, cognition, and communication to assist interviewers in eliciting the maximum amount of accurate, detailed information from witnesses of an event (Fisher & Geiselman, 1992).

5. CDM-CI Hybrid Interview
Rapport building and introduction of guidelines
Video example of a free narrative
First incident recall
Second incident recall
Video example of incident retelling
Incident retelling
Cognitive Interview
Critical Decision Method
Both
Neither

6. CDM-CI Hybrid Interview
Diagram construction
Cognitive Interview
Critical Decision Method
Both
Neither

7. Sample Diagram

8. CDM-CI Hybrid Interview
Diagram construction
Decision point identification and timeline construction

9. Timeline Construction

10. CDM-CI Hybrid Interview
Diagram construction
Decision point identification and timeline construction
Progressive deepening

11. Progressive Deepening

12. CDM-CI Hybrid Interview
Diagram construction
Decision point identification and timeline construction
Progressive deepening
Follow-up probes
Closing

13. Study 1 Method Phase I: Ethical scenario Phase II: Decision
Phase III: Immediate interview (CDM-CI Hybrid or Free Narrative)

14. Study 1 Results
Analyses indicate significantly more information elicited from the hybrid (M=8.88, SD=1.93) compared to the free narrative (M=3.00, SD=1.51),
t(30)=-9.61, p<.001.
Information Elicited

15. Study 2 Method Phase I: Ethical scenario Phase II: Decision
Phase III: Delayed interview – two days (CDM-CI Hybrid or Free Narrative)

16. Study 2 Method Phase I: Ethical scenario Phase II: Decision
Phase III: Delayed interview – two days (CDM-CI Hybrid or Free Narrative)

17. Study 2 Results
Analyses indicate significantly more information elicited from the hybrid (M=8.81, SD=1.91) compared to the free narrative (M=2.44, SD=1.15),
t(30)=-9.84, p<.001.
Information Elicited

18. Limitations
Difficult to verify information for memories of decisions elicited in interviews
80% of information about decisions provided by participants across studies and conditions was matched with verbal information in the discussion
Not yet directly compared with the CDM or CI
Comparison of CDM-CI Hybid to the CDM and CI
Are participants simply recalling their conversations rather than their memories of decisions?
Single-participant, silent decision making activities

19. Questions This project was supported in part by a grant from the
Federal Bureau of Investigation

20. New information elicited by each step of the IPD:
Overall Results
New information elicited by each step of the IPD:
Interview Step
First Incident Recall
4.97
Second Incident Recall
1.39
Interviewer Retelling
.21
Diagram Construction
1.81
Timeline Construction
.96
Progressive Deepening
2.54
Follow-Up Probes
.13