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

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

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).

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).

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

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

Sample Diagram

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

Timeline Construction

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

Progressive Deepening

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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