Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Discussing the human factors of incident investigation Nicole Gray

202 views

Published on

Discussing the human factors of incident investigation Nicole Gray

Published in: Government & Nonprofit
  • Be the first to comment

Discussing the human factors of incident investigation Nicole Gray

  1. 1. © The Keil Centre, 2017V1.0 1117 www.keilcentre.com.au Discussing the Human Factors of Incident Investigation Nicole Gray, BA (Psych); G Dip App Psych (Org), M Human Factors, Dip TSI Registered Psychologist & Human Factors Specialist Principal Human Factors Advisor The Keil Centre Tel: 0411 152 694 nicole@keilcentre.com.au 1
  2. 2. © The Keil Centre, 2017V1.0 1117 About The Keil Centre… • Based in the UK & Australia • 20 staff & associates • International client base 2Therapy & Counselling –Human Factors Analysis Tools® - Organisational development - StressTools® - 360 degree feedback - Safety Culture Maturity® - Coaching
  3. 3. © The Keil Centre, 2017V1.0 1117 3 • Engineers are human too • Investigators are human too • Interviewees (involved persons & witnesses) are human too The humanity…
  4. 4. © The Keil Centre, 2017V1.0 1117 4 Engineers are human too • Technically minded, curious, critical thinkers • Attracted to logic & complex problem solving • High attention to detail; value accuracy • Preference for ‘hands-on’ style of working • Non-technical (interpersonal) skills are…optional • Lowered tolerance for: • Small talk • Frivolous pursuits – eg. aesthetics • Non-specificity in language (eg. psychobabble) • Ambiguity • Emotional responses to feedback (criticism / enquiry) • Non-evidenced arguments / generalisations ☺
  5. 5. © The Keil Centre, 2017V1.0 1117 5 Investigators are human too • Technically minded, curious, critical thinkers • Attracted to logic & complex problem solving • High attention to detail; value accuracy • Preference for ‘hands-on’ style of working • Non-technical (interpersonal) skills are… ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ • Small talk • Frivolous pursuits – eg. aesthetics • Non-specificity in language • Ambiguity • Emotional responses to criticism / enquiry • Non-evidenced arguments / generalisations critical ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
  6. 6. © The Keil Centre, 2017V1.0 1117 6 Investigators are human too A few of my favourite cognitive biases: • Hindsight bias • Outcome bias • Confirmation bias • Halo effect • Fundamental & Ultimate Attribution biases • Planning fallacy Local Rationality Why did that action make sense to that person at that time with the information that they had available to them?
  7. 7. © The Keil Centre, 2017V1.0 1117 7 7 To get to the ‘truth of the matter’: • Working with, rather than against human memory • Rapport is important • Questioning techniques • Free unstructured recall • Interviewee Centred Interviewees are human too
  8. 8. © The Keil Centre, 2017V1.0 1117 Perception Working Memory Long-Term Memory Recall Simplified Memory / Recall Model
  9. 9. © The Keil Centre, 2017V1.0 1117 9 Human information processing ▪ We actively process information, we do not passively receive, store and retrieve information ▪ We construct what we see, hear, feel ▪ We construct what we remember ▪ Memory storage and retrieval works by associations
  10. 10. © The Keil Centre, 2017V1.0 1117 10 Event Witness perceives event Witness retains event in memory Witness retrieves event from memory Witness communicates event to investigator Investigator perceives event Investigator retains description in memory Investigator retrieves event from memory Record of interview 10 Information loss
  11. 11. © The Keil Centre, 2017V1.0 1117 11 Perception influences: Retention influences: Retrieval influences: Information loss • Focus of attention, complexity, distinctiveness • Duration of event • Workload, distractions, threats • Expectancy • Time since event • Post event information • Memory of similar events • Sense making
  12. 12. © The Keil Centre, 2017V1.0 1117 12 Forgetting over time (1)
  13. 13. © The Keil Centre, 2017V1.0 1117 13 Forgetting over time (2) • Lost ability to retrieve 5-6% of the items per year • Differences from Ebbinghaus: • Meaning; • Rehearsal (recording, revisiting, recognition Personal event memories - Marigold Linton (1970s)
  14. 14. © The Keil Centre, 2017V1.0 1117 14 Retention influences (post event information) Example: Loftus & Palmer (1974) study • People shown films of car accident, then asked • How fast were the cars going when they: contacted / hit / bumped / collided / smashed each other?
  15. 15. © The Keil Centre, 2017V1.0 1117 15 Retrieval influences: Loftus study (cont.) ▪ When asked one week later if they saw broken glass (there was none): ▪ 32% of “smashed”, compared with: ▪ 14% of “hit” said yes
  16. 16. © The Keil Centre, 2017V1.0 1117 16 ▪ Aircraft crashed into Amsterdam apartment building, 4 Oct 1992 ▪ No video footage of the impact exists ▪ (Crombaq et al, 1996): Did you see the television film of the moment the plane hit the apartment building? ▪ 55% said yes ▪ Have you seen the TV film showing the plane crashing? ▪ 66% said yes ▪ Of those who remembered: ▪ 67% said hit horizontally, 23% could not recall ▪ 23% said burning already, 41% said caught fire on impact, 33% could not recall ▪ (Ost et al 2002), found that half of people asked said they had seen Princess Diana’s fatal crash on TV Retrieval influences: questioning
  17. 17. © The Keil Centre, 2017V1.0 1117 17 Interviewee Memory • Not an accurate record of the event • Subject to contamination at perception, retention and retrieval stages • Interviewer techniques can influence the interviewee’s ability to access genuine memory
  18. 18. © The Keil Centre, 2017V1.0 1117 18 Perception influences: Retention influences: Retrieval influences: Information loss • Focus of attention, complexity, distinctiveness • Duration of event • Workload, distractions, threats • Expectancy • Time since event • Post event information • Memory of similar events • Sense making • Context, cues, distractions • Motivation, biases • Investigator behaviours
  19. 19. © The Keil Centre, 2017V1.0 1117 19 Importance of Rapport • Warmth – can I trust this person? • Competence – can I respect this person?
  20. 20. © The Keil Centre, 2017V1.0 1117 20 Active listening • Don’t interrupt; don’t fill the awkward pauses • ‘uh huh …. okay ….’ • Maintain (appropriate) eye contact • Lean forward • Paraphrase (use their words) in follow-up questions ▪ you said earlier that there were bright yellow flames … can you tell me more about that?
  21. 21. © The Keil Centre, 2017V1.0 1117 21 Unstructured Free Recall (This is a good thing)
  22. 22. © The Keil Centre, 2017V1.0 1117 22 Hierarchy of questions Unstructured Free Recall Open (broad) Open (framed) Closed Leading Reliability
  23. 23. © The Keil Centre, 2017V1.0 1117 23 Practice makes perfect... or at least progress • Answering the local rationality question should be the aim of any human performance enquiry – (why did that action/decision make sense to that person at that time, with the information they had?) 23 • Up to 40% more information than traditional interviewing techniques1 • Most of that information comes from (uninterrupted) unstructured free recall • Challenging, but worth it! 1. Fisher, RP & Geiselman, RE (1992). Memory-enhancing Techniques for Investigative Interviewing. The Cognitive Interview. Charles C Thomas Publishing: Springfield.
  24. 24. © The Keil Centre, 2017V1.0 1117 24 Thank you Nicole Gray Principal Human Factors Advisor Tel: 0411 152 694 nicole@keilcentre.com.au

×