Collaborative Recall Reduces the Effect of a Misleading Post Event Narrative

Abstract

Witnesses are susceptible to misinformation from various sources but collaborative recall can reduce the effects of self-generated misinformation (e.g. Ross, Spencer, Blatz, & Restorick, 2008). We investigated whether collaborative recall could reduce misinformation effects produced by a narrative description of the witnessed event. 175 college students viewed a video of a car accident before reading a narrative recap and completing a recall task individually or collaboratively. A 2 × 2 factorial ANOVA for independent groups revealed a misinformation effect, greater recall accuracy for collaborative pairs than individuals, and a reduction in the misinformation effect for collaborative pairs. Results are consistent with past research on the positive effect of collaborative recall and lead to additional questions about the persistence of this effect.

Full text

Author info: Correspondence should be sent to: Dr. Mark Rivardo, Psychology
Dept., St. Vincent College, 300 Fraser Purchase Road, Latrobe, PA 15650.
North American Journal of Psychology, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 1, 17-28.
 NAJP
Collaborative Recall Reduces the Effect of a
Misleading Post Event Narrative
Tara E. Karns, Sara J. Irvin, Samantha L. Suranic, and
Mark G. Rivardo
Saint Vincent College
Witnesses are susceptible to misinformation from various sources but
collaborative recall can reduce the effects of self-generated
misinformation (e.g. Ross, Spencer, Blatz, & Restorick, 2008). We
investigated whether collaborative recall could reduce misinformation
effects produced by a narrative description of the witnessed event. 175
college students viewed a video of a car accident before reading a
narrative recap and completing a recall task individually or
collaboratively. A 2 x 2 factorial ANOVA for independent groups
revealed a misinformation effect, greater recall accuracy for collaborative
pairs than individuals, and a reduction in the misinformation effect for
collaborative pairs. Results are consistent with past research on the
positive effect of collaborative recall and lead to additional questions
about the persistence of this effect.
An extensive body of research on the fallibility of eyewitness
evidence and the exoneration of those wrongly convicted through DNA
analysis ultimately led attorney general Janet Reno to call for national
standards for interacting with witnesses (Wells et al., 2000). Yet there is
much to learn about eyewitness memory and how it can become
distorted. Post event information in the form of leading questions,
exposure to narrative accounts of the event and conversations with fellow
witnesses can lead to significant and practically important distortions. In
this experiment we further explored the effects of collaborative recall,
which may occur when two witnesses are casually questioned by another
individual who arrives late on the scene, such as a rescue worker,
reporter, or just a curious onlooker.
Leading questions (e.g. Loftus, 1975; Loftus & Palmer, 1974) and
narrative accounts (e.g. Loftus, Burns & Miller, 1978) can change
episodic memories and thereby affect the responses witnesses give
immediately and during subsequent sessions. These effects have been
replicated numerous times and many factors can contribute to them.
Gudjonsson has explored suggestibility differences based on numerous
individual differences and the techniques of interviewers. For example,

18 NORTH AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY
suggestibility is negatively correlated with intelligence and memory
capacity, and positively correlated with field dependence (Singh &
Gudjonsson, 1992). Witnesses suffering from alcohol withdrawal
(Gudjonsson, Hannesdottir, Petursson & Bjornsson, 2002) or sleep
deprivation (Blagrove, 1996) are more likely to accept suggestions.
Interviewers who are firm rather than friendly are more likely to elicit the
effect in witnesses (Baxter, Boon & Marley, 2006). Furthermore,
repeated questioning about the event can lead to greater misinformation
effects (Roediger, Jacoby, & McDermott, 1996). Though younger
children are more susceptible to misinformation than older children (Ceci
& Bruck, 1993) and older adults show stronger effects than younger
adults (Karpel, Hoyer, & Toglia, 1993), people of all ages are affected by
post-event misinformation (Loftus, 2005).
Co-witnesses of a crime or traffic accident may also be sources of
misinformation when they spontaneously discuss what they have seen.
Gabbert, Memon, Allan, and Wright (2004) found that misinformation
effects are stronger with a face to face co-witness discussion than with a
post-event narrative. Likewise, Paterson and Kemp (2006) found
misleading post event information presented through a co-witness
discussion produced misinformation errors more consistently than did
leading questions, a newspaper report on the witnessed event, or a video
showing a discussion between two other co-witnesses.
In a procedure typical of those used in the co-witness literature,
Gabbert, Memon, and Allan (2003) had pairs of participants view videos
of the same incident, but from different perspectives. One witness was
able to see the girl in the video steal a small amount of money, but the
action was not visible from the other witness’s perspective. Participants
were asked to discuss the witnessed event before answering questions
independently. Over a third of the participants who had discussed the
event with another witness included in their statements information that
had been learned through the discussion. Furthermore, 60% of these
participants indicated that the girl was guilty even though they had not
actually seen her take the money. In a similar study, 60% of children
reported a detail that could not have been observed in the version of the
video that they viewed (Candel, Memon, & Al-Harazi, 2007).
Social factors of the co-witness interaction can affect misinformation
effects. Information from post event discussions was more likely to be
incorporated into reports of the event if the co-witness was a friend or
romantic partner (Hope, Ost, Gabbert, Healey, & Lenton, 2008) and
misinformation effects can be greater when misinformation is presented
in one-on-one discussion than in a group discussion (Dalton & Daneman,
2006).

Karns, Irvin, Suranic & Rivardo COLLABORATIVE RECALL 19
Co-witnesses might also participate in collaborative recall. In studies
mentioned previously, participants discussed the witnessed event but
then answered questions or freely recalled the event independently. In
other studies, participants have been questioned simultaneously.
Performance of collaborators is often compared to that of individuals or
of nominal groups, which are pairs of participants who recall
independently but have their non-redundant recollections pooled. In
general, collaborative recall tends to reduce performance compared to
nominal groups, but still be better than individual recall (e.g. Basden,
Basden, Bryner & Thomas, 1997; Weldon & Bellinger, 1997). However,
collaborative recall can reduce the frequency of false memories as well.
Ross, Spencer, Blatz and Restorick (2008) found that collaborative recall
reduced both self-generated and other-generated false memories.
Takahashi (2007) found collaborative recall reduced false memories in
the Deese-Roediger-McDermott (DRM) task (Roediger & McDermott,
1995), and Yaron-Antar and Nachson (2006) found fewer correct and
incorrect details were reported in collaborative recall than nominal
groups and individual recall.
The literature on group brainstorming shows similar patterns. Group
members are less productive than nominal groups but better than
individuals due to reduced motivation and increased self-attention (see
Mullen, Johnson & Salas, 1991 for meta-analysis). When working in a
group, task responsibility can be diffused, so individuals may feel less
motivated to contribute. Participants may also be more concerned with
meeting social expectations and therefore may withhold risky ideas.
When engaging in collaborative recall, witnesses might also withhold
details that they are less confident about to avoid the embarrassment of
mentioning something other witnesses might scoff at.
In summary, the many sources of potential misinformation, different
ways of measuring eyewitness accuracy, and different situational and
social factors make it difficult to predict whether a witness will give
accurate, credible testimony. Leading questions alone can affect
testimony (e.g. Loftus, 1975; Loftus & Palmer, 1974), but co-witness
interactions appear to be more influential (Paterson & Kemp, 2006). Co-
witness interactions prior to questioning can increase the amount of
details reported, though witnesses report details they did not observe
themselves (e.g. Paterson & Kemp). Structured collaborative recall of co-
witnesses can reduce self-generated false memories relative to individual
recall and nominal groups (Ross et al., 2008). Furthermore, collaborative
recall has been found to increase subsequent individual recall for word
lists (Basden, Basden, & Henry, 2000) and emotional events (Yaron-
Antar & Nachson, 2006). However, whether collaborative recall can
diminish the effects of narrative accounts remains to be seen.

20 NORTH AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY
In the present study, participants viewed a brief video of a car
accident. After completing a filler task, participants were given a
narrative account of the accident, which was either accurate or contained
misinformation. Participants then answered questions individually or
with a partner. We expected the participants who received the accurate
narrative to have greater recall accuracy than those that received the
misinformation (e.g. Loftus, Burns & Miller, 1978). We also expected
accuracy to be greater for collaborative groups than for individuals (e.g.
Basden, Basden, Bryner, & Thomas, 1997; Weldon & Bellinger, 1997).
Finally, we expected collaboration to reduce the misinformation effect
because Ross et al. (2008) found a similar effect on self-generated
misinformation.
METHOD
Participants
One hundred seventy-five students ages 18 to 50 (M = 20.33, SD =
1.81) volunteered for this study. All participants were recruited from
undergraduate classes at St. Vincent College; a small liberal arts,
Catholic school in PA. Participants were randomly assigned to both a
description and a group condition. There were 109 women and 66 men
from an array of classes at the college. Almost all of the students were
offered extra credit for their participation in this study.
Materials and Procedure
After granting their informed consent, participants watched a 15 sec
video clip depicting a car accident (Moo-seung & Yon-hawa, 2006). The
video clip showed a woman talking to herself in her rearview mirror, not
paying attention to the road. She rear-ended a stationary vehicle driven
by a man at a stop light. Typically 15-20 students viewed the clip in a
standard 42-seat classroom. The room was filled to near capacity for only
2 of 10 sessions. The video was projected from a computer onto a wall-
mounted screen located at the front of the classroom. After viewing the
video clip, participants worked independently on a word search
(Livewire, 2007) as a filler activity for 2 min. Without the participants’
knowledge, we randomly assigned them to complete the recall test
independently or to collaborate with another participant. Participants
were separated by condition and taken to different rooms for the
remainder of the session. Once separated, the participants in the
collaboration condition were told that they would be working with a
partner and partners were seated together. Every participant completed a
demographic questionnaire and answered questions about their previous
familiarity with the clip. Participants in the collaboration condition were
also asked questions about their familiarity with their partner. Each
participant in the individual condition and each pair in the collaborative

Karns, Irvin, Suranic & Rivardo COLLABORATIVE RECALL 21
condition received one packet. The packet contained one narrative
description of the video clip (see appendix A), which was either accurate
or inaccurate. The inaccurate description described the car accident that
was viewed in the video clip, but contained some details that were
changed. After reading the narrative participants were asked to answer
questions about the video based upon their memory of the event.
Participants in the collaboration condition were told to discuss the
questions about the video clip and answer collaboratively. The
questionnaire required participants to give specific details from the video
clip. It contained 12 questions, 7 of which addressed critical details that
were changed in the inaccurate description (see appendix B). These
critical questions are considered to be crucial in identifying the cause of
and responsibility for the accident. After returning the packet to the
experimenters, the participants received a written debriefing and were
dismissed.
RESULTS
A 2(description: inaccurate or accurate) x 2(recall type: individual or
collaborative) univariate independent subjects analysis of variance
(ANOVA) was performed on the proportion of total questions correct.
Data analysis revealed significant main effects of description and recall
type and also a significant interaction between the two variables.
Participants who received accurate descriptions performed better (M =
0.86, SD = 0.11) than participants who received inaccurate descriptions
(M = 0.68, SD = 0.19), F(3, 112) = 19.73, p < .001, η
2
= .97.
Collaborative pairs (M = 0.82, SD = 0.14) performed better than
individuals (M = 0.71, SD = 0.20), F(1, 112) = 15.16, p < .001, η
2
= .12.
As shown in Figure 1, there was also a significant interaction
demonstrating that the misinformation effect was greater for individuals
than for collaborative pairs, F(2, 112) = 22.25, p < .001, η
2
= 0.28.
A 2(description: inaccurate or accurate) x 2(recall type: individual or
collaborative) univariate independent subjects ANOVA was also
performed on the proportion of critical questions correct, those questions
that were discussed in the description. Like the previous analysis, this
ANOVA revealed significant main effects of description and recall type.
Participants who received accurate descriptions (M = 0.91, SD = 0.14)
correctly answered more of the questions addressed in the description
than participants who received the inaccurate description (M = 0.65, SD
= 0.29), F(1, 112) = 42.85, p < .001, η
2
= .28. Collaborative pairs (M =
0.85, SD = 0.21) answered more of the critical questions correctly than
did individuals (M = 0.70, SD = 0.29), F(1, 112) = 14.24, p < .001, η
2
=
.11. The interaction between description and recall type for the critical
questions failed to reach significance, F(1, 112) = 3.05, p = .084. (See
Figure 2).

22 NORTH AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY
A Mann-Whitney Test was performed to determine whether
individuals or collaborative pairs accepted at least one piece of inaccurate
information more often. Of those presented with the inaccurate
description, 25 of 30 individuals, and 20 of 30 collaborative pairs
accepted at least one piece of misinformation. This difference in
misinformation acceptance between collaborative pairs and individuals
did not differ, U = 375, p = 0.14.
FIGURE 1 Mean Proportion Question Correct for Individuals and
Collaborative Pairs Receiving Accurate and Inaccurate Descriptions.
Errors Bars Represent 95% Confidence Intervals of the Means.
DISCUSSION
Our results supported several of our hypotheses. As predicted, those
participants who read accurate descriptions had higher recall accuracy
Group Size
2.001.00
Mean Total Correct
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
Accurate
Inaccurate
Description
Mean Proportion Correct: All Questions
n = 30 n = 29 n = 30 n = 27
Individual Collaborative Pair
Recall Type

Karns, Irvin, Suranic & Rivardo COLLABORATIVE RECALL 23
for all of the questions asked and for the subset of critical questions.
Collaborative pairs also had more accurate recall than individuals.
However, collaborative recall did not reduce the effects of the misleading
narrative nor did collaborative groups have better recall than individuals
for the critical questions.
FIGURE 2 Mean Proportion of Critical Questions Correct for
Individuals and Collaborative Pairs Receiving Accurate and Inaccurate
Descriptions. Error Bars Represent 95% Confidence intervals of Means.
That we found the misinformation effect, greater accuracy for those
who read the accurate description, is not surprising. When answering
questions, participants may have relied on their memory for the video or
for the narrative. In some cases the participants may have misattributed
the source of the information such that they came to believe they had
2.00
1.00
Mean Important Correct
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
Accurate
Inaccurate
Description
Mean Proportion Correct: Critical Questions
Recall Type
n = 30 n = 29 n = 30 n = 27
Individual Collaborative Pair

24 NORTH AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY
seen a particular detail in the video (Zaragoza & Lane, 1994), or they
may have accepted information from the narrative (Loftus, 1991). The
performance of participants who read the accurate description would not
have been hindered by source misattribution or information acceptance,
but the performance of participants who read the inaccurate description
could have been negatively affected by either of these effects. Moreover,
those that read accurate descriptions may have had their initial memory
reinforced by the narrative.
As expected, collaborative pairs had higher overall recall accuracy
and higher recall accuracy for the critical questions than did participants
who worked individually. The pairs had two sets of memories to draw
upon, so when one participant could not provide an answer the other one
often could. When collaborating, pairs may elect to defer to the person
deemed to have better memory for the information sought by the
question (Weldon & Bellinger, 1997; Yaron-Antar & Nachson, 2006) or
is most confident in their memory (Wright, Self, & Justice, 2000).
The focus of the present study was on whether collaborative recall
could weaken the misinformation effect. Our results showed a significant
interaction between description and group size on overall recall accuracy.
Collaborative pairs showed a smaller misinformation effect than
individuals. It appears that collaborative recall may allow witnesses to
dismiss misinformation generated by an inaccurate narrative. Ross et al.
(2008) found that when misinformation was brought up during
discussion and the partner expressed reservation about the item, the
incorrect information was usually excluded from the pair’s final answer.
However, it should be noted that the misinformation effect was smaller
for collaborative pairs than for individuals only when all questions were
evaluated. When just the critical questions were examined the interaction
failed to reach significance. This result could have been due to the
smaller range of scores associated with fewer questions.
Of the participants who received inaccurate descriptions, two-thirds
of both individuals and collaborative pairs accepted at least one piece of
misinformation. Even though participants may have accepted only one
piece of misinformation, that detail could contain crucial information of
the witnessed event. For instance, one of our critical questions asked
what, if any, damage was done to the cars. Some participants who
answered the question incorrectly still provided detailed, but inaccurate
answers. Testimony as to whether damage was actually caused by the
accident could be the difference between negligence on the part of the
accused and insurance fraud on the part of the accuser. Also, inaccurate
testimony about the physical appearance of a suspect can lead to the
prosecution of an innocent person.

Karns, Irvin, Suranic & Rivardo COLLABORATIVE RECALL 25
The proportion of witnesses who reported misinformation is a matter
of concern given the brief delays between the witnessed event, narrative,
and collaborative recall test. Discrepancy detection is easiest when time
between the event and the misinformation is brief because the memory
for the original event is still strong (Loftus, 2005). Likewise, if the delay
between the narrative and testing is brief then the memory for the
narrative is still strong, thereby increasing the chance of discrepancy
detection. In the present study both delays were brief. Participants
completed only a 2 min. filler task between the video and the narrative,
and they completed the questions immediately after reading the narrative
and turning the page. With such brief delays, it is surprising that so many
participants demonstrated the misinformation effect.
After witnessing a crime or accident there may be opportunities for
witnesses to interact and share information. Late arriving bystanders or
members of the media may ask witnesses to recall the event before law
enforcement or legal representatives have the opportunity to interview
them. Our study simulates the case where two witnesses might first hear
the event retold by a third witness before being asked to provide their
own, collaborative account. Our results suggest that collaborative recall
may decrease the effects of misinformation provided by an inaccurate
narrative, which could lead to a more accurate composite account of the
event. However, others have shown that subsequent testimonials may
contain information that was not initially witnessed (e.g. Candel et al.,
2007; Gabbert et al., 2003). So although the pair’s responses may be
more accurate because of the collaboration, their later, individual
responses may contain more fabrications.
This research can be extended in several ways to further build upon
the existing literature. Using free recall in addition to the specific
questions would allow for the performance of individuals and
collaborative pairs to be compared with nominal groups. Yet to be
determined is whether the effect of collaborative recall on the misleading
narrative effect will persist under later, individual recall. By adding both
free recall and a second recall session more comparisons to the results of
Basden et al. (2000), Weldon and Bellinger (1997), and Yaron-Antar and
Nachson (2006) could be made.
REFERENCES
Basden, B., Basden, D., Bryner, S., & Thomas, R. (1997). A comparison of group
and individual remembering: Does collaboration disrupt retrieval strategies?
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,
23(5), 1176-1191.
Basden, B., Basden, D., & Henry, S. (2000). Costs and benefits of collaborative
remembering. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14(6), 497-507.

26 NORTH AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY
Baxter, J., Boon, J., & Marley, C. (2006). Interrogative pressure and responses to
minimally leading questions. Personality and Individual Differences, 40(1),
87-98.
Blagrove, M. (1996). Effects of length of sleep deprivation on interrogative
suggestibility. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 2(1), 48-59.
Candel, I., Memon, A., & Al-Harazi, F. (2007). Peer discussion affects children's
memory reports. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21(9), 1191-1199.
Ceci, S., & Bruck, M. (1993). Suggestibility of the child witness: A historical
review and synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 113(3), 403-439.
Dalton, A., & Daneman, M. (2006). Social suggestibility to central and peripheral
misinformation. Memory, 14(4), 486-501.
Gabbert, F., Memon, A., & Allan, K. (2003). Memory conformity: Can
eyewitnesses influence each other’s memories for an event? Applied
Cognitive Psychology, 17, 533-543.
Gabbert, F., Memon, A., Allan, K., & Wright, D. (2004). Say it to my face:
Examining the effects of socially encountered misinformation. Legal and
Criminological Psychology, 9(2), 215-227.
Gudjonsson, G., Hannesdottir, K., Petursson, H., & Bjornsson, G. (2002). The
effects of alcohol withdrawal on mental state, interrogative suggestibility
and compliance: An experimental study. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry,
13(1), 53-67.
Hope, L., Ost, J., Gabbert, F., Healey, S., & Lenton, E. (2008). 'With a little help
from my friends...': The role of co-witness relationship in susceptibility to
misinformation. Acta Psychologica, 127(2), 476-484.
Karpel, M., Hoyer, W., & Toglia, M. (2001, March). Accuracy and qualities of
real and suggested memories: Nonspecific age differences. Journals of
Gerontology: Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 56(2),
103-110.
Livewire Puzzles. (2007). Free Printable Wordsearches (n.d.) Animals 1.
Retrieved October 20, 2007 from, http://www.puzzles.ca/wordsearch.html.
Loftus, E.F. (1975). Leading questions and the eyewitness report. Cognitive
Psychology, 7, 560-572.
Loftus, E.F. (1991) Made in memory: Distortions of recollection after misleading
information. In G. Bower (Ed.) Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 27,
187-215. NY: Academic Press.
Loftus, E.F. (2005). Planting misinformation in the human mind: A 30-year
investigation of the malleability of memory. Learning & Memory, 12, 361-
366.
Loftus, E.F., Burns, H.J., & Miller, D. G. (1978). Semantic integration of verbal
information into a visual memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Human Learning and Memory, 4(1), 19-31.
Loftus, E.F. & Palmer, J.C. (1974). Reconstruction of automobile destruction: An
example of the interaction between language and memory. Journal of Verbal
Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13, 585-589.
Moo-seung, P. (Producer), Yong-hawa, K. (Writer/Director). (2006). 200 pound
beauty [Motion picture]. Korea: KM Culture Co.

Karns, Irvin, Suranic & Rivardo COLLABORATIVE RECALL 27
Mullen, B., Johnson, C., & Salas, E. (1991). Productivity loss in brainstorming
groups: A meta-analytic integration. Basic and Applied Social Psychology,
12(1), 3-23.
Paterson, H.M., & Kemp, R.I. (2006). Comparing methods of encountering post-
event information: The power of co-witness suggestion. Applied Cognitive
Psychology, 20, 1083-1099.
Roediger, H., Jacoby, J., & McDermott, K. (1996). Misinformation effects in
recall: Creating false memories through repeated retrieval. Journal of
Memory and Language, 35(2), 300-318.
Roediger, H., & McDermott, K. (1995). Creating false memories: Remembering
words not presented in lists. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,
Memory, and Cognition, 21(4), 803-814.
Ross, M., Spencer, S., Blatz, C., & Restorick, E. (2008). Collaboration reduces
the frequency of false memories in older and younger adults. Psychology
and Aging, 23(1), 85-92.
Singh, K., & Gudjonsson, G. (1992). Interrogative suggestibility among
adolescent boys and its relationship with intelligence, memory, and
cognitive set. Journal of Adolescence, 15(2), 155-161.
Takahashi, M. (2007). Does collaborative remembering reduce false memories?
The British Psychological Society, 98, 1-13.
Weldon, M., & Bellinger, K. (1997). Collective memory: Collaborative and
individual processes in remembering. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23(5), 1160-1175.
Wells, G., Malpass, R., Lindsay, R., Fisher, R., Turtle, J., & Fulero, S. (2000).
From the lab to the police station: A successful application of eyewitness
research. American Psychologist, 55(6), 581-598.
Wright, D.B., Self, G., & Justice, C. (2000). Memory conformity: Exploring
misinformation effects when presented by another person. British Journal of
Psychology, 91, 189-202.
Yaron-Antar, A., & Nachson, I. (2006, January). Collaborative remembering of
emotional events: The case of Rabin's assassination. Memory, 14(1), 46-56.
Zaragoza, M., & Lane, S. (1994). Source misattributions and the suggestibility of
eyewitness memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,
Memory, and Cognition, 20(4), 934-945.

28 NORTH AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY
APPENDIX A
Descriptive Accounts of the Accident
Accurate
At approximately 12:30 in the afternoon on Friday, a young woman named
Katherine Ching hit the backend of a silver sedan stopped at an intersection. The
sedan was driven by Ben Yip. Witnesses say they saw Ching looking at herself in
the rearview mirror immediately before the accident occurred. There was no
damage to Yip’s car but, the front bumper of Ching’s red compact car was
damaged. There are no other details to report at this time.
Inaccurate
At approximately 12:30 in the afternoon on Friday, a young woman named
Katherine Ching hit the back end of a black sedan in motion. The sedan was
driven by Ben Yip. Witnesses say they saw Ching talking on her cell phone
immediately before the accident occurred. Yip’s sedan and Ching’s blue compact
car were not damaged. There are no other details to report at this time.
APPENDIX B
Post Event Questions
1. *What color was the car responsible for the accident?
2. *Were any cars damaged? If yes, describe the car and the damage done
to the car.
3. *What was the driver of the car responsible for the accident doing
before the accident occurred?
4. *Was the car that was hit in motion or stationary?
5. What color was the license plate of the car that was hit?
6. Was the woman’s hair long or short?
7. How many people were in the car that caused the accident?
8. *Were there any pedestrians hit?
9. What color was the woman’s steering wheel?
10. Was the man wearing a watch?
* indicates a critical question. Item number 2 was divided into three items for
scoring: (a) were any cars damaged, (b) describe the car that was damaged, (c)
describe the damage done to the car.