1. False Accusations in an Investigative
Context: Differences between
Suggestible and Non-suggestible
Witnesses
Suzanne Kaasa, Ph.D.
March 19, 2012
Presentation for RAND Corporation
2. Research Areas and Methods
• Justice System
▫ Procedural Justice
▫ Evaluation
• National Security
▫ Insider threat
▫ Terrorist propaganda
• Quantitative and Qualitative
▫ Experimental manipulations
▫ Structured and semi-structured interviews
▫ Surveys
▫ Content analysis
3. False Allegations in Real Investigations
(Garven, Wood, Malpass, & Shaw, 1998)
•Report of possible abuse
•Multiple intense, high pressure,
leading interviews with children
•Fantastical allegations of severe
abuse
•Daycare workers initially charged
with hundreds of counts of abuse
•Charges ultimately dropped/hung
juries due to lack of corroboration
4. Research to Inform Policy and Practice
• Investigations
▫ Methods decrease witness suggestibility
▫ Recommendations and best practices
• Expert testimony
▫ Educating the judge/jury about factors that
increase or decrease suggestibility
▫ Inform assessments of witness credibility
(Lamb et al., 1998; Loftus & Ketcham, 1992; Pipe et al., 2004; Raskin &
Esplin, 1991 )
5. Prior Research Approaches
• Assumption: false accusations are due to suggestibility
• Purpose: identify risk factors for suggestibility
• Context: research rather than investigative
• Consequences: minor or none
(Bruck & Melnyk, 2004; Ceci & Bruck, 1993; Lamb, Sternberg, & Esplin, 1998;
Pipe, Lamb, Orbach & Esplin, 2004; Raskin & Esplin, 1991)
6. Current Research Approach
• Purpose: determine the association between
suggestibility and false accusations
▫ Suggestibility: make false statements
▫ False accusation: making a formal complaint
• Context: investigative
• Consequences: serious consequence (i.e.,
innocent person would lose their job)
7. Research Questions
• How likely are suggestible vs. non-suggestible
individuals to make a false accusation?
• Do suggestible and non-suggestible individuals
make false accusations for different reasons?
• How many individuals would retract their false
accusation if given an opportunity to do so?
9. Study Design
• Health and Personality Cover Story
▫ Lab visit
• Investigation Cover Story
▫ Interview 1
▫ Interview 2
• Debriefing
Note: no human beings were harmed in the making of this study.
10. Lab Visit
• 1-hour lab session at university
• Female research assistant (Lab RA)
• Cognitive tests, personality measures, physical
measurements
▫ Blood pressure
▫ Height & weight
▫ Hip & waist
▫ Skinfold
11. Interview #1
• Approximately 1 month after Lab Visit
• Male “lab supervisor”
I’ve received some complaints from other participants in the
study about [Lab RA], and I’d like to talk to you about what
happened in your session and what you remember about
[Lab RA’s] behavior...
12. Suggestibility
• Leading questions
I’d especially like to talk to you about the physical measures
part of the session…the other participants told me that [Lab
RA] touched them in a way that made them feel uncomfortable
when she was taking these measurements. Did this happen to
you?
• High pressure
Are you sure? I know this happened a few weeks ago, so why
don’t you think about it for a minute?
(e.g., Bruck et al., 1997; Garven et al., 2000; Lamb et al., 1997; Lepore & Sesco, 1994;
Peterson et al., 2007; Thompson et al., 1997; Roediger et al., 2001)
13. False Accusations
• Asks participant to sign complaint against Lab RA
I don’t want to keep [Lab RA] around if she’s making
people feel uncomfortable or hurting them. I have official
complaints about her from several other people, but I
need a few more before I can remove her from this part of
the study. Would you be willing to be added to the list?
Then I can stop her from running sessions with other
participants.
14. Interview #2
• Approximately 2 weeks after Interview #1
• Re-measured suggestibility and false accusations
• Lower pressure and more neutral tone
Can you tell me about when [Lab RA] took your
height and weight?...Did [Lab RA] make any
inappropriate comments?
15. Coding Suggestibility
• Subjective coding of overall suggestibility
▫ Inter-rater reliability: kappas = 1.00 and .97
• Non-suggestible: consistently denied inappropriate
behavior
• Suggestible: described inappropriate behavior
▫ e.g., “I was stripped down to my boxers eventually.”
▫ Specific statements were verified as false by checking
video recording
16. Coding False Accusations
• Signed or did not sign complaint at each
interview
• Reasons for decision
▫ Chose to sign to help protect other subjects
▫ Chose to sign because they disliked the Lab RA’s
behavior during their own session
▫ Inter-rater reliability: kappas = 1.00 and .98
18. Percent of Participants who made a False
Accusation
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Interview 1 Interview 2
Suggestible
Non-Suggestible
Interview 1: χ2(1, N = 128) = 24.96, p < .001, Cramer’s V = .44
Interview 2: χ2(1, N = 120) = 9.7, p = .002, Cramer’s V = .28
19. Percent of False Accusations Made by
Participants
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Interview 1 Interview 2
Suggestible
Non-Suggestible
20. Reasons for Making a False Accusation
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Help Peers Disliked Lab RA
Suggestible
Non-Suggestible
χ2 (1, N = 49) = 6.9, p = .009, Cramer’s V = .38
χ2 (1, N = 49) = 3.6, p = .06, Cramer’s V = .27
22. Suggestibility of Accusers, Refusers, and
Retractors
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Accusers Refusers Retractors
Suggestible
Non-suggestible
χ2(2, N = 120) = 20.67, p < .001, Cramer’s V = .42
23. Discussion: Different Pathways to False
Accusations
• Suggestible participants
▫ ambiguous personal experiences
▫ memory distortion and desire for consistency
▫ obedience to authority
• Non-suggestible participants
▫ ambiguous peer experiences
▫ social proof and situational norms
▫ perceived social responsibility
(Cialdini, 2009; Latane & Darley, 1968; Latane & Nida, 1981; Loftus, 2005; Milgram,
1974; Postmes & Spears, 1998)
24. Implications for the Justice System
• Investigations
▫ Caution regarding perceptions of responsibility for
protecting others
▫ Consider offering neutral opportunities for retraction
• Expert Testimony
▫ Suggestible witness are likely at increased risk for
making false accusations
▫ Non-suggestible witnesses may also make false
accusations, but likely for different reasons
25. Limitations and Future Research
Directions
• Interviews conducted against best practice
guidelines
• Investigation in organizational rather than
justice system context
• Lab RA and Interviewer genders
• College sample
(Lamb, Sternberg, Esplin, Hershkowitz, & Orbach, 1997)
26. Acknowledgements
• Co-authors
▫ Elizabeth Cauffman
▫ Alison Clarke-Stewart
▫ Elizabeth Loftus
• Research Assistants
Brian Yamada Kelsey Meagher
Chris Hagan Jacqueline Messerschmidt
Christina Tajalli Jacob Barak
Christina Tam Quoc Nguyen
Deborah Hahn Troy Campbell
Kaycie Craib
Kelly Maurice
