Will and Timothy are joined by guest Dr. Lorraine Hope, for a chat about doing research with the police.
In this chat format, we gather regular authors and guests in Slack and have a moderated conversation, guided by prompts and questions selected in advance. Participants get to respond to each other's points, make comments, and ask each other questions in real-time.
The transcript has been lightly edited.
Welcome to another ExE chat! Today we’re happy to be joined
by Dr. Lorraine Hope to talk about her research. Lorraine is a psychology
professor at University of Portsmouth in the UK, and does quite a wide range of
psych law research. Most relevant to our chat today, she’s done work with
police officers in the UK – both improving their practices, as well as
conducting research. So really taking some of the research we talk about on
this blog, and applying it to real world situations to see if it works.
Lorraine, thanks for joining us! Care to introduce yourself?
Lorraine

My main obsession is memory, how it works, when it works and
in particular, how we can extract more information from memory in the course of
investigative interviews or other information elicitation contexts.
Will Crozier 🐙
Timothy, you've done work with the police in the US, correct?
rabbitsnore (Timothy J. Luke)
Correct. I've done some interrogation research with American
law enforcement, and I've also pretty frequently given lectures and talks to
audiences of cops.
I've talked more with cops than I've worked with them. My
experience working with police as participants is actually limited to one
study. It was an interrogation training study. Specifically, they were state,
local, federal law enforcement. We had a pretty nice range of people – local
cops, military police, border patrol officers, even a couple park rangers. We
recruited them from the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) in
Glynco, Georgia. The study involved training about half of them in an interviewing
approach we had developed called the Strategic Use of Evidence technique. The technique is designed to improve
deception detection accuracy, and in the context of an interview with a
suspect, that typically means determining whether someone denying involvement
in a crime is guilty or innocent. The officers we trained as well as a group we
had not trained conducted interviews with mock suspects, and we had them make a
judgment of whether or not the suspect was guilty1.
Will Crozier 🐙
Sounds interesting!
As I mentioned, there are two sorts of ways you can work
with the police...you can use research to train them in some way, and/or you
can do a study where the officers are participants. Lorraine, can you describe some of the research you've done
in the latter case - where police are your participants?
Lorraine
We’ve got two main lines of research with police – in both
cases they are essentially participants, either directly taking part in an
experiment or being the recipient of some intervention (as Will
described). The first line is a set of
studies looking at memory performance for high fidelity simulated situations
involving use of firearms; the second is focused on the development of tools
and techniques to enable more effective investigative interviewing.
Although we have conducted research on frontline
interviewing practice via the use of body work video to test a training
intervention designed to improve interviewing by frontline officers, I guess
police are the more obvious ‘participants’ in the first line – and we’ve been
describing this group as ‘operational witnesses’ (given that they are required
to come up with some response in a scenario – defuse, de-escalate, contain or
otherwise secure the scene to prevent a threat extending to other members of
the public).
In our research using firearms-type simulations, we’re
mostly interested in the content and accuracy of post-incident accounts by
officers.
Across the three main studies we’ve conducted, I think we
could summarise our findings as follows:
1. Officers
responding/acting in these scenarios report less information (cf. observers)2. Across studies we noted the omission of
information – including legally relevant details2,3,4.
2. Overall accuracy
rates tend to be high for free report – which, when considered in the context
of omissions, suggests conservative reporting strategies3,4.
Accuracy rates for cued recall questions are significantly lower3.
3. Despite high
accuracy rates, we also observed some sizeable errors – including impaired
recognition of a target if the officer was physically exerted2 and also mis-reporting about a perpetrator’s
weapon4. For instance, in one study almost one fifth of officers
incorrectly reported that a gun had been pointed at them at the end of a
stressful, escalating scenario – when in fact, the gun remained in the
perpetrator’s waistband throughout the scene4. This is an
interesting misinformation type error.
rabbitsnore
Fascinating! When you use the term "conservative
reporting strategy" what do you mean?
Lorraine
I think they regulate reporting to avoid error - as they
perceive that error will be 'punished' harder than absence of reporting. This
is contextually driven as far as I can tell - accounts are circumspect given
the likelihood of tough cross-examination.
rabbitsnore
That seems to make good sense, given the potential legal
ramifications of getting details wrong.
Lorraine
Yes. Although at the same time, it creates another potential
problem - which often ends up being an issue - failure to report specific
detail or omission of key information. This then becomes the focus of any
further investigation and can create sizeable animosity. It's an interesting
dilemma.
So it's a question of the risk of being wrong versus the
risk of omitting (potentially accurate) information. I think it's particularly acute in this
context
Will Crozier 🐙
We just had a paper come out earlier this year looking at
body-worn cameras, but one of the findings in it was that people think police
have better, more accurate memories than lay people
Your work suggests that police can make memory errors as
well
Lorraine
That belief about memory is a massive problem
It really works again the police with respect to their
accounts of events. Worse still, it
often precedes accusations of collusion.
Of course, collusion can and does occur - there was an
interesting article in the NYT about 'testilying'. But that is quite distinct from naturally
occurring memory error5
rabbitsnore
In practice, it can be difficult to distinguish deception
from memory errors -- and that, of course, makes everything so much messier.
Lorraine
Yes - of course. In pretty much every talk I give to police
or other investigators (including the independent investigators who investigate
police shootings etc) I end up saying there's no silver bullet beyond good
interviewing practice
rabbitsnore
It's interesting that you see such a high error rate, for
instance, for remembering that the perpetrator drew a weapon. That's exactly
the sort of "error" that could easily be taken as a deceptive attempt
to, say, justify the use of force. But it could also be a genuine memory error.
Lorraine
And even then...there's still no silver bullet
Sure. It could be a
genuine memory error. It could also be a rational post hoc justification in the
absence of actual memory.
i.e. I'd only have taken a shot if a gun had been pointed at
me
rabbitsnore
Exactly.
Lorraine
When we debriefed officers in that particular study, they
were pretty shocked to be wrong.
Will Crozier 🐙
I wonder if it changed their view of memory going forward?
Lorraine
I wonder. It's one of
my big frustrations. A good deal of
police training focuses on technical aspects - tactics, shooting accurately,
legal rights, etc etc
But officers never get (in any of the forces I'm aware of)
an opportunity to take part in a tough simulation and then sit down to write a
statement and experience the memory issues they're likely to experience in the
aftermath of an actual shooting. I think that's pretty negligent and repeatedly
advise including this aspect in training.
Imagine the first time you really experience a serious gap
in your memory (due to stress, divided attention etc) is when you have shot
someone?
rabbitsnore
That would be pretty jarring, I imagine.
Similarly, in my interrogation study at FLETC, there were a
few officers who were extremely confident in their deception judgments and were
shocked to learn they were wrong. I spent a while debriefing one officer and
watching the tape of his interview with him. He seemed pretty disturbed that
his judgment could have been off.
He kept saying, "But I've put people in jail based on
stuff like this."
Lorraine
That's tough. But it's the fault of inadequate training.
It's one thing that keeps me focused on working with people in these jobs -
mostly they're trying to do their absolute best but they aren't always given
the best tools for the job.
Or the right information.
rabbitsnore
I totally agree.
Will Crozier 🐙
What is your goal in doing this research? Strictly to
improve practice? Are you building psychological theory?
Lorraine
First, I think if you are going to describe yourself as
doing ‘applied research’ or even if you want to claim that your work has
application to some field or external activity, you have to work with the
people at the coal-face or, at the very least, have some meaningful
communication with them about what is actually involved in the problem,
challenge or issue you are attempting to work on.
Otherwise (a) you probably don't understand
the real-world nature of the task/problem very well (i.e. have only rather
superficial knowledge) and (b) you or your work will lack the credibility to
have any lasting influence in terms of practice or policy.
When working on research with the police we usually have a
few different but complementary goals.
First, we are always there with the goal of getting a better
understanding of some phenomenon – and usually if we are working with the
police, it’s with a view to inform or improve practice in some way. This kind of research is incredibly expensive
in terms of the time it takes, the number of people involved, the logistics and
locations involved etc so there needs to be a very clear outcome – with practical
aspects – from the outset.
Second, as a scientist, I’m interested in determining
whether existing theories that may have been developed under lab conditions
adequately account for data obtained in different context.
Third, I think it’s incredibly important that there is a
two-way communication back and forth between researchers and practitioners if
at all possible. Communication with police and other stakeholders informs both
my lab work as much as it informs more applied work with special samples.
Will Crozier 🐙
There is certainly a wide variety of memory research,
ranging from showing nonsense strings of letters, all the way to measuring
memory in real world situations like you do here. My inclination is that the
easiest is somewhere in the middle...you use a realistic event (like watching a
video of a crime) but do it in a lab setting. I think it's really important to
get work on both ends of that spectrum though - and your work certainly
qualifies as being on the "very applied" end
Timothy, how does this compare with your work at FLETC?
rabbitsnore
Lorraine pretty much summed up my experience for me! Heh. I
agree with everything she said.
I guess the thing that I'd add is that working with cops can
be really logistically challenging. It’s difficult to gain access to the law
enforcement – even just to get their contact information and get in touch with
them. It’s hard to recruit and retain police participants. For these reasons, I
think it’s tough to get a large enough body of data when working with police to
really develop theory (since it usually takes a lot of data to develop
theories).
So I think what we end up doing often with this sort of
thing is developing a "working knowledge" of a phenomenon in the lab,
and then if we're lucky we get to test it with the police.
Lorraine
And I think that's actually a great approach. I don't think
we’ve observed anything so profoundly novel that it hasn’t already been
documented in some form or another in lab research. But, frankly, I probably
wouldn’t have expected that to be the case – as our hypotheses are always drawn
from the existing theories etc.
However, we have been able to push the envelope on the
conditions under which we test participants. We would not have been able to put
standard lab participants (students or members of the public) into the
scenarios we were able to test officers in - for a variety of ethical reasons.
And even if we could have done, what would have been the point? We would have been ignoring the training and
experience of a special sample for performance in the task we were actually
testing. So, I do think that it is
important to conduct research in a variety of contexts.
Having said that, I think that there is a very important
place for lab work – and we conduct plenty of that too. As I mentioned earlier
communication with police and other stakeholders informs both my lab work as
much as it informs more applied work with special samples.
So, in terms of the contribution of the work with police
simulations, I think it creates a bridge between lab tests and actual field
performance while maintaining as much experimental control and methodological
rigour – and we put a huge amount of effort into that – as possible.
Will Crozier 🐙
Are police interested in the theory side of the research at
all? Or just care about the results they can use?
Lorraine
Hmmm. On the whole, external stakeholders are not interested
in our theories!
So the trick can be to design work which hits both their
needs (for practical information) and those which are more abstract
rabbitsnore
Heh. Yeah, my experience is that the police aren't super
interested in the more esoteric parts of the project -- which is
understandable. They're largely interested in potential practical benefits.
Will Crozier 🐙
Maybe if you didn't refer to it as esoteric, it might be
more interesting 😉
rabbitsnore
Also, my experience is that law enforcement officers -- like
anyone else -- don't like to be treated like lab rats.
They often want to get a concrete understanding of the
real-world applicability of the work.
Lorraine
It can also be a bit tricky to explain/convince regarding
necessary elements of the design or sample size requirements
rabbitsnore
Oh, man. Yeah, that kind of stuff is hard.
Lorraine
But that's sometimes true of other researchers - especially
in interdisciplinary work
rabbitsnore
Explaining experimenter expectancy effects and the need for
blinding can be tricky.
Lorraine
Control groups, systematic procedures, matched procedures,
replicable stimulus event - but we have managed to win them over on all of
these
Will Crozier 🐙
So police don't always understand the nitty gritty of the
research design....but do they enjoy taking part in research in general? How do
they react?
Lorraine
This work is very challenging to do but once there is
alignment between the people who need to say ‘yes’ and the researcher, it can
go very well. We've always had really positive feedback from officers taking
part in our research - they find it interesting, they ask great questions - and
often I feel that the majority of officers just want people to try to help them
do their job better. Clear communication is absolutely critical. Researchers
really need to be clear about their expertise and what the research ‘red lines’
are (we can’t answer all the questions in a single study; we need a viable
sample size; we must be able to control for X and Y). At the same time,
researchers need to be humble about their contextual knowledge. You know what
doesn’t work well at all? Stomping in
there with a “Let me tell you how to do your job properly” attitude.
I've seen other academics do this - and it tarnishes the
road for everyone.
rabbitsnore
Yes indeed.
I think a good approach to take is to acknowledge that we --
academics and practitioners -- have a lot to learn from each other.
Lorraine
Of course occasionally (and it is pretty occasionally),
particularly in training, you get the odd individual who is defensive - not
keen on the whole collaboration with an egghead idea. But it's really rare in
my experience.
rabbitsnore
Heh. I've literally been called an egghead to my face by a
practitioner.
Lorraine
I think the HIG has a great model that often combines an
academic with a practitioner for training.
rabbitsnore
Yeah, I've taken part in one of those joint training
sessions. My sense is that it's a really good approach.
Lorraine
I've been taking that kind of format for talks/presentations
etc in the UK - gets you much further in terms of being able to get the
research out there.
rabbitsnore
The practitioner-trainers often have a better sense of how
to "translate" the research into language that resonates better with
other practitioners.
That is, a better sense than us eggheads.
Lorraine
They also have much better anecdotes to contextualise the
abstract idea or findings in...
rabbitsnore
No doubt.
It's kind of remarkable to me that practitioners have been
as receptive as they have been, in my experiences. The results of the study I
ran with FLETC aren’t especially encouraging for cops’ ability to detect
deception, so there’s a risk that the work wouldn’t be particularly popular.
But at least some groups of American law enforcement have
been eager to learn from psychologists (and other researchers) to help improve
practice. I’ve been asked on occasion to comment on their training materials,
for example. The eagerness to collaborate, cooperate, and learn from each other
is certainly not universal, but my experiences have often been quite good.
Will Crozier 🐙
I'm sure you spend some time doing networking and explaining
before the research actually takes place though, right?
rabbitsnore
There was certainly a lot of coordination and preparation
with FLETC in my work.
Lorraine
A lot of time - and a lot of false starts/dead leads. It's a
very big time/effort investment compared to a lot of other research sometimes.
rabbitsnore
Before data collection, we spent a considerable amount of
time explaining the plan, getting approvals, setting dates, hitting delays,
setting dates again...
Lorraine
On the other hand when everything is set to go and you have
the relevant resources allocated to you, it is amazing to work with such an
effective team of people - for example in one of our studies which involved 300
firearms officers round the UK, we had a lot of police personnel charged with
different tasks to make everything in the experimental scenarios (which were
very complicated) work like clockwork - they were incredible to work with.
rabbitsnore
That was my experience working with FLETC as well. They were
quite supportive and eager to assist. I think it helps that the police are
generally accustomed to large-scale coordinated operations. Heh.
Will Crozier 🐙
Overall it seems like good news police are open to
participating and collaborating though. I think sometimes, especially here in
the US, some officers create a reputation for being hard headed and we'll-do-things-our-way
that doesn't generalize to most officers or departments. It's encouraging that
many are open to the idea of testing strategies and hopefully learning the most
effective way to do their jobs.
rabbitsnore
And likewise, we can learn a lot from them working with
them, too. As someone who studies interrogation, it's important for me to have
a clear understanding of the circumstances under which interrogations take
place and what officers' objectives and concerns are, for example. It's the police
that have that knowledge.
Lorraine
I think it's really important to encourage the idea of
collaboration. Some of the negativity can be attributed to the perception that
X will involve more work, more forms, create stress...so part of the job for
the academic, ideally in conjunction with a practitioner champion, is to get
people onboard by being very clear about what's in it for them.
Agree with Timothy - we really need to know what the actual
problems and challenges are - we can't adequately come up with these from the
comfort of our offices!
Will Crozier 🐙
What happens when you're done with the study? Do you follow
up with the department to send them your findings? Never talk to them again?
Lorraine
It varies (although it's never not talk to them again!). In
some cases, we submit specially prepared reports of the findings; in others,
I'll send a copy of the paper (assuming it doesn't take years to get through
the writing/publication process). If it's taking a long time, I like to send a
short form overview or if it's feasible (depending on location etc), go back
in, do a presentation and a Q&A.
rabbitsnore
In our case, we had a sit-down debriefing session with the
unit at FLETC that assisted us, and we were able to give them preliminary
results at that meeting. Later, we sent them a copy of the paper, and I've been
back down to FLETC a few times to give presentations to their staff. We want to
make sure we're not just taking their data and running. It helps everyone if
the collaboration continues.
Will Crozier 🐙
Glad to hear it isn't just debriefing that helps disseminate
the findings, then
I wonder if this is a good opportunity for science
transparency to be helpful, too....do you ever post the short reports /
recorded presentations on the internet somewhere?
Lorraine
Other options are write-ups for end-user outlets, magazines,
websites etc.
Will Crozier 🐙
Well, that wraps up all the questions we have for you
Lorraine
Any parting words?
Lorraine
Thanks for a great chat round some really interesting topics
close to my heart. Hopefully we can all continue doing work that might
eventually make a difference to someone facing a challenging situation!
rabbitsnore
Indeed! And thanks for joining us!
Lorraine Hope is Professor of Applied Cognitive Psychology at the University of Portsmouth, UK and a member of the UK Centre for Research and Evidence on Security Threats (CREST; (https://crestresearch.ac.uk). She is also the Strategic Lead for the International Investigative Interviewing Research Group (iIIRG). Her work focuses on the performance of human cognition in applied contexts, including memory and decision-making under challenging conditions. Over the past 15 years, her research has resulted in the development of innovative tools and techniques, informed by psychological science, for eliciting accurate and detailed information and intelligence (e.g. Timeline Technique, Self-administered Interview, Structured Interview Protocol). She regularly delivers tools, research, evaluation and training for investigative interviewing and information elicitation in international policing, intelligence and security sectors. She has published widely on memory and information elicitation topics and speaks regularly at academic and practitioner conferences. She is currently Associate Editor of British Psychological Society journal Legal and Criminological Psychology and a Consulting Editor for the American Psychological Association Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied.
References
1. Luke, T. J., Hartwig, M., Joseph,
E., Brimbal, L., Chan, G., Dawson, E., Jordan, S., Granhag, P. A., &
Donovan, P. (2016). Training in the Strategic Use of Evidence: Improving
deception detection accuracy of American law enforcement officers. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology,
31, 270-278.
2. Hope, L., Lewinski, W., Dixon, J., Blocksidge, D.,
& Gabbert, F. (2012). Witnesses in action: The effect of physical exertion
on recall and recognition. Psychological Science, 23, 386-390.
3. Hope, L., Blocksidge, D., Gabbert, F., Sauer,
J. D., Lewinski, W., Mirashi, A., & Atuk, E. (2016). Memory and the
Operational Witness: Police officer
recall of firearms encounters as a function of active response role. Law & Human Behavior, 40, 23-35.
4. Hope,
L., Gabbert, F., & Fraser, J.
(2013). Post incident conferring by law enforcement officers: Do discussions affect beliefs and
accuracy? Law & Human Behavior, 37,
17-27.
I admire this article for the well-researched content and excellent wording about writing tips. I got so involved in this material that I couldn’t stop reading. I am impressed with your work and skill. Thank you so much.
ReplyDeleteAbcyacom games
friv Games for school
frivland.blogspot.com
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete