Interviewing in Virtual Environments: Towards Understanding The Impact Of Rapport‑building Behaviours And Retrieval Context On Eyewitness Memory Part 1

Abstract

Given the complexities of episodic memory and the necessarily social nature of in-person face-to-face interviews, theoretical and evidence-based techniques for collecting episodic information from witnesses, victims, and survivors champion rapport building. Rapport is believed to reduce some of the social demands of recalling an experienced event in an interview context, potentially increasing cognitive capacity for remembering. Cognitive and social benefits have also emerged in remote interview contexts with reduced anxiety and social pressure contributing to improved performance. 

Because episodic memory is people's memory of a specific scene or event, it is directly related to memory performance. If a person has a good memory, his memory of scenes and events will be clearer. Therefore, we should focus on improving our memory so that we can better retain and recall important situations.

At the same time, episodic memory is also an important cognitive ability, which can help us better understand and adapt to the surrounding environment. For example, when we encounter a familiar scene or character, we can quickly recall what happened in the past and thus better cope with the environment at hand.

In daily life, we can improve our memory and episodic memory capabilities by exercising our brains. For example, we can use more memory skills, focus on thinking training, read more, participate in more social activities, etc. Only by constantly stimulating the brain can our memory and episodic memory become better.

Therefore, let us actively explore and retain beautiful episodic memories, and at the same time continuously improve our memory, so that our thinking and cognitive abilities can become better, and we can be more powerful to deal with the challenges in life. It can be seen that we need to improve our memory. Cistanche deserticola can significantly improve memory, because Cistanche deserticola can also regulate the balance of neurotransmitters, such as increasing the levels of acetylcholine and growth factors. These substances are very important for memory and learning. In addition, meat can also improve blood flow and promote oxygen delivery, which can ensure that the brain receives sufficient nutrients and energy, thus improving brain vitality and endurance.

Click know supplements to improve memory

Here, we investigated episodic memory in mock eyewitness interviews conducted in virtual environments (VE) and in-person face-to-face (FtF), where rapport-building behaviours were either present or absent. The main effects revealed when rapport was present and where interviews were conducted in a VE participants recalled more correct event information, made fewer errors and were more accurate. 

Moreover, participants in the VE plus rapport-building present condition outperformed participants in all other conditions. Feedback indicated both rapport and environment were important for reducing the social demands of a recall interview, towards supporting efortful remembering. Our results add to the emerging literature on the utility of virtual environments as interview spaces and lend further support to the importance of prosocial behaviours in applied contexts.

Keywords

Eyewitnesses · Episodic memory · Virtual Environment · Rapport · Cognitive Resources.

Introduction

The information provided by witnesses, victims and survivors1 is fundamental to the investigation of crime and prosecution of perpetrators. When providing an account, witnesses are asked to reconstruct and recount personally experienced episodes that occurred in a particular temporal and spatial context (Tulving, 1993). Episodic memory is a complex cognition which conceptually comprises several distinct components—what, when, and where—accompanied by a feeling of reexperiencing (Conway & PleydellPearce, 2000; Tulving, 1993). 

Witness information is usually collected during an interview, typically conducted in person, or face-to-face by a police officer or a similar professional investigator. Given the complexities of episodic memory and the necessarily social nature of face-to-face interview contexts, many theoretical and evidence-based witness interview techniques champion rapport-building as a technique to support the development of positive interaction and help manage the power imbalance between the professional interviewer and witness (e.g., Ministry of Justice, 2022—Cognitive Interview; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Protocol; PEACE Model).

Rapport-building, also referred to as prosocial behaviour or supportive/attentive behaviour, is believed to be important for relieving some of the social demands of an interview (e.g., Kieckhaefer et al., 2014; Nahouli et al., 2021; Roberts et al., 2004; Webster et al., 2021), potentially increasing cognitive capacity for remembering (Dando et al., 2016; Fisher & Gieselman, 1992; Milne & Bull, 2016; Nahouil et al., 2021; Webster et al., 2021). 

Comfortable witnesses may well be better placed to devote finite cognitive resources to complex cognitions, here recalling episodic experiences (e.g., Fiske & Taylor, 2013; Frith & Frith, 2012; Gallese et al., 2004). It seems sensible to suggest that socially comfortable witnesses will be “better” witnesses; however, the experimental rapport-building literature in this regard is limited. There is no widely agreed definition of rapport, and as a recent review has revealed, the experimental literature has tended to emphasize verbal rapport-building (see Gabbert et al., 2021). 

Presumably, verbal behaviour is more straightforward to operationalise, control, and analyse than nonverbal behaviour. Furthermore, research findings are very mixed, likely because rapport is often subjectively described, for example as a bond, a connection to another, and a communicative alliance, and rapport behaviours are variously operationalised, both theoretically and empirically. Further, different clusters of rapport behaviours are applied, and rapport is not measured consistently across studies.

Rapport-building is not a prescriptive process and is thought to comprise a wide range of physical and/or verbal behaviours. In investigative interview contexts, rapport-building behaviours are generally thought to be verbal, facial, and physical. Examples include active listening (smiling, nodding, & uh-huh), immediacy behaviours (eye contact & leaning forward), self-disclosure (Abbe & Brandon, 2014), tone of voice and empathy (e.g., Baker-Eck et al., 2020; Dando & Oxburgh, 2016; Grifths & Rachlew, 2018; Jakobsen, 2021), and personalising the interview (Fisher & Geiselman, 1992). 

Indeed, professional training materials and guidance for conducting interviews with witnesses emphasize and describe various rapport-building behaviours. For example, the Cognitive Interview technique (Fisher & Geilselman, 1992), the UK College of Policing (2021) and the Norwegian Police College (Fahsing & Rachlew, 2009; Rachlew & Fahsing, 2015) all suggest several verbal behaviours, including personalising the interview process by “introducing yourself,” interacting meaningfully with the witness “making it feel like a two-way conversation,” and making the conversation “natural and simple.” Less guidance is offered on nonverbal behaviour, simply that head-on face-to-face interactions should be avoided that interviews should be calm, and that interviewers should respect witnesses’ personal space. The recent Ministry of Justice (2022) Achieving Best Evidence guidance suggests, for example, beginning by conversing about neutral topics using easily answered, predominantly open questions, and using supportive behaviours such as active listening (Achieving Best Evidence guidance relates to England and Wales). 

The PEACE investigative interviewing model (relevant to England and Wales), the PRICE model (relevant to Scotland), and the Norwegian KREATIV national investigative interviewing training program emphasise the use of neutral open questions in establishing rapport in terms of supporting the witness to answer positively to create a positive mood. The Cognitive Interview (Fisher & Geiselman, 1992) suggests rapport can be built and maintained by personalising the interview process, interacting meaningfully with the witness, being attentive and transferring control of the interview from the interviewer to the witness (Memon & Higham, 1999).

Despite varying operationalisations of rapport-building, there is consensus that some rapport-building behaviour is better than none for positive outcomes (e.g., College of Policing, 2018; Gabbert et al., 2021; Ministry of Justice, 2022; Milne & Bull, 1999; Nahouli et al., 2021; Nash et al., 2014; Nash et al., 2016; Walsh & Bull, 2012), although experimental research findings are mixed. Some research indicates witnesses can provide more complete and accurate accounts when rapport-building behaviours are present (e.g., R. Collins et al., 2002; Holmberg & Madsen, 2014; Nahouli et al., 2021; Nash et al., 2016; Vallano & Schreiber Compo, 2011; Novotny et al., 2021), but this is not always the case (see Kieckhaefer et al., 2014; Sauerland et al., 2018). 

For example, verbal rapport-building (unaccompanied by appropriate behaviours) has been found to increase information yield (e.g., Novotny et al., 2021), whereas some have reported that verbal behaviour alone is less effective (e.g., Nahouli et al., 2021). In a similar vein, extensive rapport-building (comprising both verbal and behavioural techniques), has been reported to improve recall performance (e.g., Collins et al., 2002; Kieckhaefer et al., 2014; Nahouli et al., 2021), while others have reported no positive impact (e.g., Meissner et al., 2015; Sauerland et al., 2018). 

A recent review of the use of rapport by professionals during interviews with witnesses and suspected offenders/ persons of interest has indicated that some form of rapport does improve outcomes in the majority of cases reviewed (Gabbert et al., 2021).

Most experimental rapport research has employed traditional in-person face-to-face interview paradigms (although see Drolet & Morris, 2000; Nunan et al., 2020). Yet the COVID-19 public health emergency has forced organisations to consider virtual or remote interview solutions, bringing into sharp focus just how little remote interviewing research has been conducted. 

Rapport-building in remote information-gathering interviews has received little attention versus traditional in-person face-to-face contexts despite increasing digital adoption that is changing the way that organisations do business, including police and government bodies (e.g., national crime agencies). Here, we investigate witness memory in remote virtual environments and explore the impact of a cluster of basic rapport behaviours that are drawn from contemporary best practice guidance, and which are theoretically and empirically supported (see below).

Virtual environments as interview spaces

Virtual environments (VEs) are immersive computer simulations with a high degree of realism (Loomis et al., 1999; Taylor & Dando, 2018; Witmer & Singer, 1998) that offer opportunities as remote witness interview spaces. VEs render visual, auditory, and haptic information within milliseconds, bringing about realistic behaviour because the environment “feels” real, thus leveraging behavioural responses to environmental changes and challenges (e.g., Slater, 2009; Gonzalez-Franco & Lanier, 2017). 

VEs can be quickly and remotely created and managed using widely accessible portable computer and smartphone technology. In VEs, people communicate as avatars (see Ahn et al., 2013), which allows them to interact realistically albeit in the absence of physical co-presence (Bacon et al., 2019; Kang & Watt, 2013). The extant literature on avatar-to-avatar communication highlights potential cognitive and social benefits, suggesting interviews in VEs may be as efficient as face-to-face in-person witness interviews in some instances.

Non-investigative interviewing research, that is research concerned with interviews conducted for reasons other than the investigation of crime, reveals improved outcomes and better interviewer/interviewee experiences. Examples include enhanced disclosure of information (e.g., Bacon et al., 2019; Joinson, 2001; Suler, 2004) and reduced performance anxiety (e.g., Omarzu, 2000; Rubin, 1975). Interviewees and interviewers have also reported less social pressure (Bacon et al., 2019; Herrera et al., 2018) and increased confidence (e.g., Salmon et al., 2010). More recently, online simulation training using avatars was found to improve the quality of clinical psychologists’ interviewing (Haginoya et al., 2021; Pompedda et al., 2022). 

Avatar-to-avatar nonverbal communication has also been found to increase cooperation, lowering the need for additional verbal interactions to achieve efficient outcomes that require social cooperation (Greiner et al., 2014). Similarly, improved interpersonal trust and more impactful nonverbal behaviours have been reported when communicating avatar-to-avatar versus other communication contexts (e.g., Bente et al., 2008; Roth et al., 2017; Segal et al., 2022).

As far as we are aware the only published research conducted in a VE with mock witnesses is that by Taylor and Dando (2018) who found some advantages of gathering witness information in VEs akin to some of the benefits reported in the non-investigative literature. Episodic performance improved, with a significant reduction in errors, mirroring positive findings reported by others where memory and related cognitions were investigated in a VE (Bailenson et al., 2008; Saidel-Goley et al., 2012). Taylor and Dando also reported that the VE was well received. Interviewee experiences were extremely positive, including participants feeling more comfortable explaining when they did not know the answer or could not remember and enhanced concentration, which may have contributed to improved performance.

This pattern of results alongside findings from the wider literature suggests improved performance in a VE may emanate from a combination of reduced social demand (typically experienced in human-to-human interactions) and an absence of external stimuli, potentially reducing a dual cognitive task (episodic remembering and social monitoring) to a single task (remembering). Avatars represent the presence of another, offering social and communication benefits but without being physically co-present, perhaps limiting the potentially confounding influence of others on cognition, including memory (e.g., Brewer & Feinstein, 1999; Fiske, Lin, & Neuberg, 2018; Macrae & Bodenhausen, 2000; Maddox et al., 2008). Given that episodic recall is a demanding cognitive task, requiring a subjective sense of time (mental time travel), and a connection to the self and autonoetic consciousness, it is reasonable to suggest that an absence of external stimuli and better-managed social demand will support improved performance.

Remote rapport‑building

Numerous positive benefits of rapport-building in remote avatar-to-avatar communication have been reported, including inducing strong feelings of positivity (Rehm et al., 2016), improved social engagement (Peyroux & Frank, 2014), and increased self-disclosure (Lee & Dryjanska, 2019; Pickard et al., 2016). However, as far as we are aware, no experimental rapport-building research has been conducted in VE interview spaces with witnesses. In Taylor and Dando’s (2018) study a formal rapport-building phase was not included, although an informal and friendly conversation did take place before the start of the retrieval interview, during which the interviewer used positive nonverbal behaviours (e.g., eye contact, nodding). 

These behaviours are argued as being key rapport-building techniques (see Abbe & Brandon, 2014) and studies have found them effective (e.g., Collins et al., 2002; Holmberg & Madsen, 2014; Nahouli et al., 2021; Vallano et al., 2011; see Gabbert et al., 2021, for a review). However, these behaviours were common to all conditions, hence rapport was not manipulated nor was it the focus of the research.

Some research has remotely manipulated rapport, and rapport has been investigated in face-to-face video-mediated contexts and during the remote production of facial composite sketches (e.g., Kuivaniemi-Smith et al., 2014; Nash et al., 2014; Nash et al., 2020; Sun, 2014). Although markedly different interview environments, the findings are encouraging, suggesting that rapport can be built remotely, and where this occurs interviewees reveal more sensitive information, and the accuracy of witness accounts improves versus where rapport was absent. Furthermore, interviewees report better concentration and feeling less pressured. In common with traditional in-person face-to-face paradigms, a variety of rapport behaviours were employed including informal and friendly conversation, eye contact, reciprocal conversation, friendly tone, use of first name, and appearing interested and engaged.

Although the wider literature indicates the potential benefits of VEs as interviewing spaces and possible advantages of avatar-to-avatar rapport (e.g., Mousas et al., 2018; Saarijärvi & Bratt, 2021; Sutherland, 2020) more research is needed. Here, we report a mock eyewitness study where a cluster of rapport-building behaviours was experimentally manipulated in traditional in-person face-to-face and VEavatar-to-avatar interview contexts. 

We selected a small number of physical and verbal rapport behaviours described in the applied experimental literature (e.g., Collins et al., 2002; Kieckhaefer et al., 2014; Nahouli et al., 2021; Vallano & Schreiber Compo, 2011), the prevailing professional interviewing guidance (e.g., College of Policing, 2021; Ministry of Justice, 2022), and which were appropriate for use both in a VE which necessitates the use of a headset, and face-to-face contexts, as follows. In the rapport-present conditions, to begin the process of engagement, the interviewers commenced the rapport phase by offering some non-personal information about themselves and interacting with the participants using open-ended invitations to exchange information about neutral topics. 

Simultaneously, the interviewers displayed two attentive physical behaviours—namely, looking at interviewees/making eye contact when the interviewee was talking (as appropriate) and nodding when the interviewee spoke and answered questions. Two attentive verbal behaviours were also used—namely, referring to the interviewee by their first name and thanking the interviewee whenever they provided information/answered a question. 

Both verbal and physical behaviours continued throughout the interview (see Table 1) in the rapport-building conditions only and were absent throughout interviews in the rapport conditions. Although data collection was completed before the publication of a review of rapport in professional contexts (Gabbert et al., 2021), the rapport behaviours used here are all highlighted as key methods for building rapport.

For more information:1950477648nn@gamil.com