Content uploaded by Annelies Vredeveldt
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Annelies Vredeveldt on Oct 10, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
A Field Evaluation of the Eye-Closure Interview
With Witnesses of Serious Crimes
Annelies Vredeveldt, Colin G. Tredoux,
Alicia Nortje, Kate Kempen, and Cheneal Puljevi´
c
University of Cape Town
Gérard N. Labuschagne
South African Police Service, Pretoria, South Africa,
and University of South Africa
Laboratory research shows that eye-closure during memory retrieval improves both the amount and the
factual accuracy of memory reports about witnessed events. Based on these findings, we developed the
Eye-Closure Interview, and examined its feasibility (in terms of compliance with the instructions) and
effectiveness (in terms of the quantity and quality of reported information) in eyewitness interviews
conducted by the South African Police Service. Police interviewers from the Facial Identification Unit
were randomly assigned to receive Eye-Closure Interview training or no training. We analyzed 95
interviews with witnesses of serious crimes (including robbery, rape, and murder), some of whom were
instructed to close their eyes during salient parts of the interview. Witnesses in the control condition
rarely spontaneously closed their eyes, but witnesses in the Eye-Closure Interview condition kept their
eyes closed during 97% of their descriptions, suggesting that the Eye-Closure Interview would be easy
to implement in a field setting. Although witnesses who closed their eyes did not remember more
information overall, the information they provided was considered to be of significantly greater forensic
relevance (as reflected in 2 independent blind assessments, 1 by a senior police expert and 1 by a senior
researcher). Thus, based on the findings from this field study and from previous laboratory research, we
conclude that implementation of the Eye-Closure Interview in witness interviews would help police
interviewers to elicit more valuable information from witnesses, which could be relevant to the police
investigation and/or in court.
Keywords: eye-closure interview, eyewitness memory, field research, forensic relevance
Eyewitnesses play a central role in police investigations and
court cases. Based on witness statements, the police may conduct
a mugshot search, construct a line-up, interview other witnesses, or
formulate theories about how a crime was committed. In a court of
law, eyewitnesses often provide valuable evidence contributing to
the conviction or acquittal of a suspect. It is therefore important to
maximize the quantity and quality of witness testimony. The
current article presents a field study to evaluate whether the
Eye-Closure Interview can improve the quantity and/or quality of
reports provided by witnesses of serious crimes.
Many techniques have been developed to help witnesses re-
member more, of which the Cognitive Interview (Fisher & Geisel-
man, 1992;Geiselman et al., 1984) is probably the most well-
known. The Cognitive Interview incorporates various principles
from social psychology, such as rapport-building and transfer of
control, and cognitive psychology, such as mental context rein-
statement (i.e., mentally placing oneself back into the context of
the crime) and recalling the event in reverse order. A recent
meta-analysis including 59 effect sizes (Memon, Meissner, &
Fraser, 2010) found that the Cognitive Interview increases the
amount of accurate information reported by witnesses (d⫽1.20)
with only a relatively small concurrent increase in inaccurate
information reported (d⫽0.24). One limitation of the Cognitive
Interview, however, is that it requires a considerable amount of
training, and that the interview itself takes significantly longer than
a standard interview (e.g., Dando, Wilcock, & Milne, 2008).
Therefore, it may not be practical in all cases. Indeed, in England
and Wales, where official policy recommends use of the Cognitive
Interview in all interviews with witnesses and victims, Clarke and
Milne (2001) found no evidence of the procedure having been used
in 83% of cases. Thus, although the Cognitive Interview is widely
This article was published Online First November 10, 2014.
Annelies Vredeveldt, Colin G. Tredoux, Alicia Nortje, Kate Kempen,
and Cheneal Puljevi´
c, Department of Psychology, University of Cape
Town; Gérard N. Labuschagne, Forensic Services Division, South African
Police Service, Pretoria, South Africa, and Department of Police Practice,
University of South Africa.
Annelies Vredeveldt is now at the Department of Criminal Law &
Criminology, Faculty of Law, VU University Amsterdam.
This work was funded by the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group
contract J-FBI-10-009 awarded to The University of Cape Town subcon-
tract through The University of Texas at El Paso. Statements of fact,
opinion, and analysis herein are those of the authors and do not reflect the
official policy or position of the FBI or the U.S. Government. The authors
thank Maj. Gen. (ret.) Sharon Schütte, Lt. Col. Meliza Pretorius, Lt. Col.
Jan de Lange, Capt. Samantha Sharp, and all involved members from the
Facial Identification Unit for their invaluable assistance with the research,
and Ron Fisher and Pär Anders Granhag for their helpful comments
regarding the interpretation of findings.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Annelies
Vredeveldt, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Faculteit der Rechtsgeleerd-
heid, De Boelelaan 1105, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands. E-mail:
anneliesvredeveldt@gmail.com
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Law and Human Behavior © 2014 American Psychological Association
2015, Vol. 39, No. 2, 189–197 0147-7307/15/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000113
189
considered the ‘gold standard’ for investigative interviewing, it
may be helpful to develop brief alternatives for cases in which it is
not possible or feasible to conduct a full Cognitive Interview.
One element of the Cognitive Interview is a recommendation
that witnesses close their eyes during the interview. Recent labo-
ratory research has shown that eye-closure on its own, without the
other elements of the Cognitive Interview, can also improve wit-
ness recall. For example, eye-closure improved recall of Princess
Diana’s funeral (Wagstaff et al., 2004), live and video-taped ev-
eryday events (Perfect et al., 2008), violent video-taped events
(Vredeveldt, Baddeley, & Hitch, 2012,2014), and an unexpected
staged altercation (Vredeveldt & Penrod, 2013). Specifically, eye-
closure increases the report of accurate information, with effect
sizes falling generally within the range of medium to large (ds
between 0.50 and 1.00). At the same time, eye-closure either does
not significantly affect the report of inaccurate information (Per-
fect et al., 2008, Experiments 2, 3, & 5; Vredeveldt & Penrod,
2013;Wagstaff et al., 2004), or even reduces it (Perfect et al.,
2008, Experiments1&4;Vredeveldt et al., 2012,2014). Thus, the
eye-closure instruction could be a valuable addition to the inves-
tigative interviewer’s toolbox.
Two main explanations for the benefits of eye-closure on recall
have been proposed, one general and one modality-specific. First,
it is possible that eye-closure has a general effect on cognitive
performance—consistent with Glenberg’s (1997) embodied cog-
nition account, which construes environmental monitoring and
memory retrieval as two concurrent tasks competing for cognitive
resources. This idea is supported by findings that (a) eye-closure
improves performance on a wide range of cognitive tasks (Glen-
berg, Schroeder, & Robertson, 1998), (b) in some studies, eye-
closure improves recall of both visual and auditory aspects of
events (e.g., Perfect et al., 2008), and (c) eye-closure mitigates the
cross-modal impairment typically caused by auditory distraction
(Perfect, Andrade, & Eagan, 2011). Second, it is possible that the
eye-closure effect is modality-specific—in line with Baddeley and
Hitch’s (1974) working memory model, which shows that concur-
rent tasks typically only interfere with each other if they are
presented in the same modality. This idea is supported by findings
that (a) in some studies, eye-closure improves recall of visual but
not auditory aspects of witnessed events (e.g., Vredeveldt et al.,
2012,2014), and (b) recall of visual aspects is most disrupted by
visual distractions in the environment, whereas recall of auditory
aspects is most disrupted by auditory distractions (Vredeveldt,
Hitch, & Baddeley, 2011). In sum, there is evidence for both
general and modality-specific effects, and it seems likely that these
effects are complementary rather than mutually exclusive (see also
Vredeveldt et al., 2011;Vredeveldt & Perfect, 2014).
Although its benefits on the amount and accuracy of event recall
have proven robust in laboratory settings, the eye-closure instruc-
tion has not yet been tested in the field. In fact, few field studies
have been conducted on any topic in the eyewitness memory area,
but some in this small collection have raised concern about the
external validity of findings from laboratory studies (e.g., Cutshall
& Yuille, 1989;Woolnough & MacLeod, 2001;Yuille & Cutshall,
1986). For example, field studies have found witnesses to be
surprisingly accurate in their descriptions, which is at odds with
the image of the eyewitness emerging from the laboratory. Yuille
(1993) has cogently argued that we need data from actual eyewit-
nesses who have witnessed real crimes in order to draw valid
conclusions about eyewitness memory. Participants in laboratory
studies and actual eyewitnesses differ on many dimensions, in-
cluding their demographic backgrounds, the level of emotional
arousal experienced during the witnessed event, their involvement
in the event, and their ability to perceive the event. Yuille and
Wells (1991) note that “the variances and covariances among
variables that infiltrate actual eyewitness cases are controlled or
‘randomized out’ in experimental research in ways that can make
generalization from experiments to actual cases a risky endeavor
under certain circumstances” (p. 127).
One of the few interview techniques that has been tested in the
field is the Cognitive Interview. Three studies found that the
benefits of the Cognitive Interview observed in the laboratory
extended to field situations (Clifford & George, 1996;Colomb,
Ginet, Wright, Demarchi, & Sadler, 2013;Fisher, Geiselman, &
Amador, 1989). Two other studies, however, found no benefits of
the Cognitive Interview in a field setting (Memon, Holley, Milne,
Köhnken, & Bull, 1994;Newlands, George, Towell, Kemp, &
Clifford, 1999). These null findings were probably attributable to
the insufficient length and quality of interview training (Memon et
al., 1994), and/or to the use of different outcome measures (New-
lands et al., 1999). Nevertheless, they highlight the importance of
verifying whether a technique that is effective in the laboratory
also works in the field. This is equally important for the eye-
closure instruction, given that, to date, it has only been studied in
the laboratory. The present study examined whether the eye-
closure instruction is effective with real eyewitnesses. To this end,
we developed the Eye-Closure Interview (ECI)—a simple proce-
dure that can readily be adopted by police interviewers, consisting
of one essential instruction: asking witnesses to keep their eyes
closed throughout salient parts of the interview. We investigated
whether the Eye-Closure Interview was feasible (in terms of com-
pliance with the instructions) and effective (in terms of the amount
and quality of reported information) in interviews conducted by
police members from the Facial Identification Unit in the South
African Police Service (SAPS). These interviews were conducted
with witnesses (victims or bystanders) of serious crimes, including
armed robbery, rape, and (attempted) murder.
The primary task of members in the Facial Identification Unit is
to construct a facial composite of the perpetrator based on witness
descriptions. Generally, witnesses find it difficult to describe faces
“in a precise and globally agreed upon language” (O’Toole, Abdi,
Deffenbacher, & Valentin, 1995, p. 160). Nevertheless, detailed
descriptions are necessary to enable composite construction. In a
typical Facial Identification Unit interview, witnesses are encour-
aged to put a great deal of cognitive effort into remembering the
perpetrator’s appearance, whereas less emphasis is placed on re-
membering other details of the witnessed event (e.g., the modus
operandi). Glenberg’s (1997) embodied cognition account sug-
gests that disengaging from the environment is only necessary
when recollection is difficult. Indeed, Glenberg et al. (1998) found
that people avert their gaze more when answering more difficult
general-knowledge questions, and when retrieving events that hap-
pened longer ago. Based on the notion that eye-closure is likely to
be most beneficial for effortful recollection, we predicted that in
the current study, the Eye-Closure Interview would be most ben-
eficial for recall of the perpetrator’s appearance. It should be noted
that this prediction was specific to the present sample of interviews
from the Facial Identification Unit, in which witnesses were en-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
190 VREDEVELDT ET AL.
couraged to focus on the perpetrator rather than on other aspects of
the event.
In field research, it is often difficult to assess the factual accu-
racy of information reported by witnesses. However, it is possible
to evaluate the quality of the information in terms of its value for
the police investigation or in a court of law, which we term
‘forensic relevance’ (Roberts & Higham, 2002). Forensic rele-
vance can be measured in different ways. For example, one can
binary-code each detail provided by witnesses as either forensi-
cally relevant or nonrelevant, and aggregate this (cf. Roberts &
Higham, 2002). Alternatively, one can evaluate the degree of
forensic relevance of each witness report as a whole, as a police
investigator might do during an ongoing investigation (cf. New-
lands et al., 1999). We collected both detail-specific and global
measures of forensic relevance.
In sum, we investigated whether the Eye-Closure Interview
would improve the quantity and quality of information provided by
eyewitnesses of serious crimes. Based on previous research, we
predicted that witnesses in the Eye-Closure Interview condition
would report more information than witnesses in the control con-
dition. Further, we hypothesized that this effect of the Eye-Closure
Interview would be most pronounced for details about the perpe-
trator’s appearance, due to the nature of the Facial Identification
Unit interviews. In this field study, we could not verify the factual
accuracy of information reported by witnesses. However, we pre-
dicted that the Eye-Closure Interview would enhance the quality of
the information in terms of its forensic relevance.
Method
Ethical Approval
Approval was obtained from the Department of Psychology
Research Ethics Committee (University of Cape Town) and the
Federal Bureau of Investigation Institutional Review Board
(United States).
Power Calculation
We calculated our minimum required sample size based on the
effect size reported in previous research that most closely resem-
bled field conditions, namely, the effect of eye-closure on the total
number of details reported in free recall about a live altercation on
the street (Vredeveldt & Penrod, 2013). Given that the police
members involved in the current project indicated that most of
their interviews are conducted inside (e.g., at the police station or
the witness’ home), we selected Vredeveldt and Penrod’s effect
size for witnesses who were interviewed inside, namely, d⫽0.78.
Thus, to achieve power of .80, we needed at least 26 witnesses per
condition. This is a conservative power estimate, given that it is
based on independent observations, whereas our study concerned
nonindependent observations (i.e., each interviewer in our study
provided multiple interviews). However, because criminal events
witnessed in real life are more variable than the scripted events
used in previous research, and thus involve a greater amount of
error (measurement, sampling, random), we decided to collect as
many interviews as possible over a data collection period of seven
months, with a minimum of 26 interviews per condition.
Interviewers
We recruited 12 police interviewers from five SAPS Facial
Identification Units in the Western Cape Province (an area of
approximately 129,462 km
2
). Interviewers were assigned to six
pairs matched on gender, age, and years of experience. One mem-
ber from each pair was randomly assigned to the Eye-Closure
Interview condition, and the other to a control condition. Because
of personal circumstances, one interviewer in the Eye-Closure
Interview condition (who had not contributed any interviews) was
replaced midway through the project by a new Facial Identification
Unit member who had not yet been involved in the project—he
was trained in an individual session. Each condition contained six
interviewers (three male) with a mean age of 36 years (SD ⫽5).
On average, interviewers in the Eye-Closure Interview condition
had five years’ experience (SD ⫽3) and interviewers in the control
condition had six years’ experience (SD ⫽5). Toward the end of
data collection, one interviewer in the control condition was re-
trained to use the Eye-Closure Interview technique, to boost the
number of interviews in the Eye-Closure Interview condition. He
contributed four interviews to the Eye-Closure Interview condi-
tion, and the local police captain (who also attended the training
session) also contributed one interview to the Eye-Closure Inter-
view condition.
Interview Selection
In total, 63 interviews were collected in the control condition
and 46 in the Eye-Closure Interview condition. Before data col-
lection, three exclusion criteria were established: (a) in line with
ethics regulations, we excluded interviews with witnesses younger
than 18 years (n⫽5), (b) to avoid complications, we excluded
interviews in which multiple witnesses were present (n⫽3), and
(c) to enable comparisons between event recall and perpetrator
recall, we excluded interviews in which witnesses did not describe
the event (n⫽6). This selection process yielded 55 usable inter-
views in the control condition and 40 in the Eye-Closure Interview
condition. Because of the nature of our field study, this unbalanced
design was unavoidable. Table 1 shows the case characteristics for
each condition.
Witnesses
Our sample consisted of 42 male and 53 female witnesses aged
between 18 and 75 (M⫽34.72, SD ⫽14.39). We had an
ethnically diverse sample. Under the Apartheid government
(1948–1994), South Africans were classified, and segregated, into
several population groups by law. This classification is no longer
enforced by law, but implicitly affects life in South Africa, in
many ways (for an overview, see Worden, 2011). For example,
this classification was used in the 2011 South African Census
(Statistics South Africa, 2012). Our sample included 38 Black
witnesses (people of African descent), 24 White witnesses (people
of European descent), 32 Colored witnesses (people of mixed
ethnicity, or Indonesian, or San descent), and 1 Indian witness
(people descended from the Indian subcontinent of Asia).
Training Sessions
All police members attended a training session for this research
project. The researchers explained that they were investigating “a
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
191
FIELD EVALUATION OF THE EYE-CLOSURE INTERVIEW
new procedure for interviewing witnesses,” and that half of the
members would be trained to use this new procedure, whereas the
other half would be trained after data collection was complete.
Next, all members were trained in a protocol for obtaining in-
formed consent, setting up video- and voice-recording equipment,
and debriefing witnesses (see “Procedure” section), after which
members in the control condition were dismissed. The remaining
police members were informed about the Eye-Closure Interview,
and instructed when and how to use the eye-closure instruction
during interviews. They participated in role-play interviews to
practice the technique with their colleagues. Interviewers were
instructed not to disclose the nature of the interview procedure to
their colleagues in the control condition. On completion of data
collection, all police members attended a second session, during
which members in the control condition were informed about the
Eye-Closure Interview, and trained in its use. In addition, the
researchers presented preliminary findings and a set of general
interviewing guidelines (collated from various peer-reviewed
sources) to all police members.
Materials
Interviewers received (a) written protocols with full instructions,
in English, Afrikaans, and isiXhosa (the three most commonly
spoken languages in the area), (b) informed-consent forms for
witnesses, (c) location-specific lists of helpful phone numbers for
witnesses (e.g., help centers for abuse, drugs, and rape), (d) a
document with frequently asked questions and the researchers’
contact details, and (e) video- and voice-recording equipment,
accompanied by instruction manuals. Interviewers in the control
and Eye-Closure Interview conditions received different versions
of the protocol, informed-consent forms, and frequently asked-
question lists.
Procedure
Because we integrated our research into the ordinary business of
the Facial Identification Unit, it is necessary to explain how this
unit operates. When witnesses report a crime to the SAPS, they are
interviewed by a police member who takes their statement. This
interview is typically not very thorough (however, if the crime
concerns a sexual offense, the witness may be referred to a dif-
ferent sexual-offenses detective for a second interview). If the
crime involves an unknown perpetrator, witnesses are referred to
the Facial Identification Unit, whose members conduct a more
comprehensive interview with the primary purpose of constructing
a facial composite. The case is referred to the Facial Identification
Unit member on standby in the area, unless there is a special
request for a specific language or for a female interviewer (e.g., in
rape cases). The Facial Identification Unit member then makes an
appointment to meet the witness at the police station, the witness’s
home, or the scene of the crime (ideally within 48 to 72 hours).
During the data collection period, Facial Identification Unit mem-
bers were instructed to invite all witnesses to participate in the
current project, except in cases in which the witness was younger
than 18, or multiple witnesses were present.
Before starting the interview, Facial Identification Unit mem-
bers asked the witness for permission to film and voice-record the
interview for a project on police interviewing techniques con-
ducted by specialists at the University of Cape Town. Interviewers
in the Eye-Closure Interview condition also explained that partic-
ipation in the project would involve eye-closure during the inter-
view. Witnesses who gave their permission read and signed the
informed consent form, after which the interviewer set up the
video- and voice-recording equipment. Interviewers then pro-
ceeded with their normal interview procedure (using a standard-
ized scene report form), which consists of (a) obtaining a descrip-
tion of the event (through a free-recall question, potentially
followed by a few follow-up questions), (b) obtaining a description
of the perpetrator (through a free-recall question, followed by an
extensive list of questions about the perpetrator’s appearance and
characteristics), and (c) constructing a facial composite. Interviews
lasted 35 minutes on average, with 9% of interview time spent on
describing the event, 13% on describing the perpetrator, and 63%
on composite construction. Interviewers in the Eye-Closure Inter-
view condition instructed witnesses to keep their eyes closed
during recall of the event and the perpetrator, and reminded them
of this instruction when appropriate. To prevent expectancy ef-
fects, we did not inform witnesses that eye-closure may improve
memory. However, providing no reason at all for the eye-closure
instruction was considered unethical, because it could make wit-
nesses uncomfortable. Therefore, we provided a reason that de-
emphasized potential effects on cognitive performance: interview-
ers were instructed to tell the witness that “closing your eyes may
help you to relax.”
After obtaining descriptions of the event and perpetrator, but before
composite construction, interviewers asked witnesses to rate on a
scale ranging from 1 (not at all)to10(extremely) the following: how
(a) comfortable and (b) relaxed they had felt during the interview, and
how well they had been able to (c) concentrate, (d) see the crime in
their head, and (e) remember details about the crime. They then
constructed the facial composite using books with predetermined
features and specialized software (E-FIT or Identikit 2000, depending
on the Facial Identification Unit member). Finally, witnesses were
thanked, informed about the purpose of the study, and provided with
a list of helpful phone numbers.
Table 1
Case Characteristics in the Control Condition (n ⫽55) and
Eye-Closure Interview (ECI) Condition (n ⫽40)
Characteristic
Condition
Control ECI Total
Language of interview
English 41 28 69
Afrikaans 8 11 19
isiXhosa 6 1 7
Type of crime
Unarmed/nonviolent robbery 20 7 27
Armed/violent robbery 28 18 46
(Attempted) rape/murder 6 13 19
Other 1 2 3
Number of perpetrators
1202242
222830
3⫹13 10 23
Cross-race description
Yes 28 18 46
No 27 22 49
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
192 VREDEVELDT ET AL.
Data Coding
Compliance. Three coders inspected the video-recorded inter-
views and coded when witnesses opened or closed their eyes
during recall of the event and the perpetrator (excluding brief
eyeblinks). One main coder coded all interviews, and two inde-
pendent researchers each double-coded half of the interviews.
Interrater reliability was established for the percentage of time that
witnesses had their eyes closed. Specifically, the percentages re-
corded by the main coder were compared with the percentages
provided by the double-coder who double-coded that interview.
There was a strong correlation between percentages recorded by
the main coder and the double-coders, r
s
⫽.93, 95% CI [.90, .96],
p⬍.001. The main coder’s results were retained for analysis.
Amount of information. All Afrikaans and isiXhosa inter-
views were translated into English by professional translators. All
interviews were transcribed verbatim, and all references to inter-
view condition were removed from the transcripts. The first author
developed a coding scheme in collaboration with two senior in-
vestigative officers in the SAPS, to categorize the content of
witness reports in a way that would be meaningful to police
investigations. All details reported by witnesses were coded for
type of information, forensic relevance, and modality (see Table 2
for examples). First, statements were classified as relating to the
perpetrator’s appearance or characteristics (Perpetrator), modus
operandi (M.O.), other potential witnesses (Witness), or any other
details (Other). Second, statements were coded as highly, some-
what, or not forensically relevant. Forensic relevance was defined
as information that may be “considered relevant in an investiga-
tion, a court of law, or both” (Roberts & Higham, 2002, p. 35).
Finally, all details were coded as visual (e.g., what the perpetrator
looked like), auditory (e.g., what the perpetrator said), or other
modality (e.g., smells or feelings).
The first author and three coders independently coded the first
10 interviews. Coding disagreements were discussed and resolved
by group discussion. Subsequently, one third of the remaining
interviews were coded by Coders A and B, one third by Coders A
and C, and one third by Coders B and C. All coders were blind to
interview condition. In each coder pair, one of the coders divided
the transcripts into countable segments (i.e., details), and the
second coder double-coded these segments without seeing the first
coder’s results. Disagreements were resolved by discussion. Inter-
rater reliability between the first and second coder of each pair was
deemed acceptable for the category of details, ⫽.85, 95% CI
[.84, .86], p⬍.001, modality, ⫽.78, 95% CI [.76, .80], p⬍
.001, and forensic relevance, ⫽.64, 95% CI [.62, .66], p⬍.001.
Quality of information. We recruited a retired senior police
officer from the SAPS to provide a global rating of perceived
forensic relevance for each transcript as a whole. To obtain an
additional independent assessment of perceived forensic relevance,
transcripts were also rated by the principal investigator (i.e., the
researcher who developed the quantitative coding scheme in col-
laboration with the police). Both raters were blind to condition,
and to each other’s ratings. Transcripts were rated for perceived
forensic relevance on a 7-point Likert scale (again defined as
information that would be relevant for a police investigation or in
court). There was a strong correlation between the assessments
provided by the two raters, r⫽.75, 95% CI [.65, .83], p⬍.001.
Results
Compliance
On average, witnesses in the control condition closed their eyes
during 0.2% of their descriptions of the event and the perpetrator
(range: 0% to 6%). In contrast, witnesses in the Eye-Closure
Interview condition kept their eyes closed during 97% of their
descriptions (range: 78% to 100%). Thus, witnesses almost never
closed their eyes spontaneously, and compliance with the eye-
closure instruction was very high.
Amount of Information
Table 3 shows the number of details reported by witnesses in the
control and Eye-Closure Interview condition, categorized by type,
modality, and forensic relevance of the information. In a police
investigation, the most pertinent measure is the amount of unique
information reported by witnesses, therefore, each piece of infor-
mation was counted only once (the number of repeated details did
not differ between conditions; control: M⫽13.71, SD ⫽7.86;
Eye-Closure Interview: M⫽12.13, SD ⫽8.53; t(93) ⫽1.12, p⫽
.266, d⫽0.23, 95% CI [⫺0.18, 0.64]). Problems with positive
skew and leptokurtosis were remedied by square-root transforma-
tion before analysis. Reported inferential tests and effect sizes are
based on the transformed variables, but descriptive presentations
are of the untransformed variables.
Type of detail. To account for the nested data structure (i.e.,
each interviewer provided a different number of interviews), we
conducted multilevel modeling on the number of details reported.
First, we constructed a baseline model (cf. Field, 2013) with
Interview Condition (Control, Eye-Closure Interview) as a fixed
factor and Type of Detail (Suspect, M.O., Witness, Other) as a
covariate. Next, we constructed a hierarchical model by adding
Interviewer as a Level 2 variable with a random intercept. Adding
Interviewer significantly improved the fit of the model,
2
(1) ⫽
Table 2
Coding Scheme: Examples of Details in the Perpetrator, Modus Operandi (M.O.), Witness, and Other Categories Considered to be
Highly, Somewhat, and Not Forensically Relevant
Category
Forensic relevance
Highly relevant Somewhat relevant Not relevant
Perpetrator He had a tattoo He looked young His hair was on his head
M.O. He had a gun It happened at 8 a.m. He opened his mouth
Witness Someone else witnessed the crime Someone took me to the police station after the crime The other witness was nice
Other I fought back I begged for help I was tired
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
193
FIELD EVALUATION OF THE EYE-CLOSURE INTERVIEW
4.24, p⫽.039, PRV ⫽.04, hence we report the statistics from the
multilevel model.
There was a significant main effect for type of detail, F(1,
365.88) ⫽53.00, p⬍.001, f⫽0.38. Table 3 shows that most
details were reported in the Perpetrator category, followed by M.O.
and Other, with a relatively small number of details reported in the
Witness category. The model revealed no significant main effect of
interview condition, F(1, 179.20) ⫽1.76, p⫽.186, f⫽0.10, but
there was a significant interaction between condition and type of
detail, F(1, 365.88) ⫽3.91, p⫽.049, f⫽0.10. To explore this
interaction in more detail, separate multilevel models for each type
of detail were conducted. There was a nonsignificant tendency for
witnesses in the Eye-Closure Interview condition to report more
information about the perpetrator (Mdn ⫽35, interquartile
range ⫽26–46) than witnesses in the control condition (Mdn ⫽
29, interquartile range ⫽22–38), t(22.66) ⫽1.16, p⫽.259, d⫽
0.43, 95% CI [0.02, 0.85]. Note that the 95% confidence interval
for effect size ddoes not include zero, which clashes with the
finding of nonsignificant differences from the multilevel model.
However, because the multilevel model takes the hierarchical
structure of the data into account, it provides a more appropriate
indication of the statistical significance of the difference. Interview
condition also did not have a significant effect on information in
any of the other categories (see Table 3): M.O., t(16.52) ⫽⫺0.47,
p⫽.646, d⫽⫺0.09, 95% CI [⫺0.50, 0.31], Witness, t(7.06) ⫽
0.01, p⫽.995, d⫽0.02, 95% CI [⫺0.38, 0.43] and Other,
t(16.01) ⫽⫺1.49, p⫽.155, d⫽⫺0.28, 95% CI [⫺0.69, 0.13].
Modality. A multilevel model with interview condition as a
predictor, modality as a covariate, and Interviewer as a Level 2
variable revealed a significant main effect of modality, F(1,
270.75) ⫽486.89, p⬍.001, f⫽1.34. The majority of information
reported by witnesses was visual in nature, with only few auditory
and other-modality details reported (see Table 3). The model
revealed no significant interaction between condition and modal-
ity, F(1, 270.75) ⫽0.03, p⫽.853, f⫽0.01.
Forensic relevance. A multilevel model with interview con-
dition as a predictor, the detail-specific measure of forensic rele-
vance as a covariate, and Interviewer as a Level 2 variable revealed
a significant main effect of forensic relevance, F(1, 271.43) ⫽
551.00, p⬍.001, f⫽1.11. Table 3 shows that most details
reported by witnesses were coded as highly or somewhat relevant;
only relatively few details were considered not forensically rele-
vant. Further, it seems that witnesses in the Eye-Closure Interview
condition tended to report less nonrelevant information than wit-
nesses in the control condition. However, because the multilevel
model revealed no significant interaction between condition and
forensic relevance, F(1, 271.43) ⫽1.36, p⫽.245, f⫽0.07, we did
not conduct separate multilevel model analyses for each level of
relevance.
Quality of Information
To assess the quality of the reported information, two indepen-
dent blind raters provided a global rating of perceived forensic
relevance for each interview transcript. A 2 (Rater: police expert,
principal investigator) ⫻2 (Condition: Control, Eye-Closure In-
terview) mixed ANOVA on these ratings revealed significant main
effects of rater, F(1, 93) ⫽9.33, p⫽.003, f⫽0.11, and condition,
F(1, 93) ⫽5.39, p⫽.024, f⫽0.22, but no significant interaction,
F(1, 93) ⫽0.02, p⫽.901, f⫽0.00. To permit a comparison
between the two raters from different backgrounds, we report
simple contrasts despite the nonsignificant interaction. The police
expert rated transcripts in the Eye-Closure Interview condition as
significantly more forensically relevant (M⫽3.60, SD ⫽1.65)
than transcripts in the control condition (M⫽2.91, SD ⫽1.57),
t(93) ⫽2.08, p⫽.040, d⫽0.43, 95% CI [0.02, 0.84]. Similarly,
the principal investigator provided higher ratings of forensic rel-
evance for transcripts in the Eye-Closure Interview condition
(M⫽3.98, SD ⫽1.61) than the control condition (M⫽3.25,
SD ⫽1.48), t(93) ⫽2.26, p⫽.026, d⫽0.47, 95% CI [0.06, 0.88].
Correlational analyses showed that the global rating of per-
ceived forensic relevance (averaged over both raters) correlated
significantly and positively with the detail-specific measure of the
number of highly relevant, r(95) ⫽.37, 95% CI [.18, .53], p⬍
.001, and somewhat relevant details, r(95) ⫽.26, 95% CI [.07,
.44], p⫽.010, but not with the number of nonrelevant details,
r(95) ⫽.14, 95% CI [⫺.07, .33], p⫽.193. The relationship
between the detail-specific and global measures of forensic rele-
vance will be addressed in the Discussion.
Self-Report Ratings
To remedy negative skew, witnesses’ self-report ratings about
their feelings and cognitive processes during the interview were
inverted and square-root transformed before analysis. A multivar-
iate ANOVA revealed no significant effect of interview condition,
F(5, 78) ⫽1.55, p⫽.185, f⫽0.31. Univariate ANOVAs for each
rating revealed no significant effects either (all ps⬎.151). Thus,
there were no significant differences between the control and
Eye-Closure Interview conditions in terms of how comfortable and
relaxed witnesses reported feeling during the interview, nor in
terms of how well they were able to concentrate, see the crime in
their head, and remember information. Note that witnesses in the
Eye-Closure Interview condition were informed that closing their
eyes may “help them to relax,” hence potential differences with
respect to this rating may have been affected by expectancy
Table 3
Number of Details Reported by Witnesses in the Control
Condition (n ⫽55) and Eye-Closure Interview (ECI) Condition
(n ⫽40), Categorized by Type, Modality, and Forensic
Relevance of the Information
Detail
Condition
Control ECI Total
MSDMSDMSD
Type
Perpetrator 30.84 10.48 36.28 14.88 33.13 12.74
M.O. 24.60 15.30 23.20 14.45 24.01 14.89
Witness 4.44 5.99 4.58 6.21 4.49 6.05
Other 25.02 16.65 20.60 14.72 23.16 15.94
Modality
Visual 65.18 21.26 65.98 21.60 65.52 21.29
Auditory 12.76 13.36 11.93 11.34 12.41 12.49
Other modality 6.95 7.44 6.75 6.89 6.86 7.18
Forensic relevance
Highly relevant 43.71 19.31 45.35 18.91 44.40 19.06
Somewhat relevant 33.75 15.38 35.18 14.74 34.35 15.05
Not relevant 7.11 9.41 3.75 4.90 5.69 7.97
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
194 VREDEVELDT ET AL.
effects. However, there was no significant difference in “relaxed”
ratings between the control condition (M⫽7.72, SD ⫽2.47, n⫽
54) and the Eye-Closure Interview condition (M⫽6.68, SD ⫽
3.16, n⫽35), t(87) ⫽0.89, p⫽.376, d⫽0.19, 95% CI [⫺0.23,
0.62].
Discussion
The aim of this field study was to assess the feasibility and
effectiveness of the Eye-Closure Interview with eyewitnesses of
serious crimes, including armed robbery, rape, and murder. We
found that witnesses complied with the eye-closure instruction
97% of the time, whereas witnesses in the control condition rarely
closed their eyes spontaneously. Contrary to predictions, the Eye-
Closure Interview did not increase the overall amount of informa-
tion reported. Potential explanations for this null finding will be
considered below. However, there was a significant interaction
between interview condition and the type of information reported:
witnesses in the Eye-Closure Interview condition tended to report
more information about the perpetrator and less information in the
“Other” category than witnesses in the control condition (although
neither of these simple contrasts was significant in the multilevel
model). Perhaps the most important finding from the current
research was that the Eye-Closure Interview significantly en-
hanced the perceived quality of the information reported by wit-
nesses. Thus, although the Eye-Closure Interview did not increase
the absolute number of forensically relevant details, it significantly
increased the perceived overall forensic relevance of witness re-
ports, as reflected in the independent assessments of a senior police
expert and a senior researcher.
The main rationale for introducing the Eye-Closure Interview to
investigative interviewers is that this simple procedure may be
easier to implement in practice compared with more complex
interview protocols (cf. Clarke & Milne, 2001). Our findings show
that real witnesses of serious crimes do not seem to have difficulty
with the eye-closure instruction: witnesses in the Eye-Closure
Interview condition kept their eyes closed during 97% of their
descriptions. Further, the self-report ratings provided no evidence
that witnesses in the Eye-Closure Interview condition felt less
comfortable than witnesses in the control condition. These findings
should alleviate at least some of the concerns expressed by some
practitioners that interviewers would not be able to convince real
eyewitnesses to close their eyes during an investigative interview.
Nevertheless, further investigations are needed to determine
whether these findings are specific to our particular sample of
witnesses, who had consented to participating in a research project.
Our main prediction, that eye-closure would increase the
amount of information reported by witnesses, was not supported.
We can only speculate why this basic finding from laboratory
studies was not replicated. First, one could argue that it may be
attributable to a weak experimental manipulation or insufficient
power. However, given that previous studies have found large
effects using similar instructions, and given that we collected a
greater sample of interviews per condition than required based on
our power calculation, these explanations seem unlikely. Perhaps a
more plausible explanation is that the behavior of the police
interviewers in the current study moderated the eye-closure effect.
In the laboratory, interviewer behavior can to some extent be kept
consistent across conditions: interviewers are typically instructed
to adhere to strict interviewing protocols that specify instructions
to participants, interview questions, and the order in which ques-
tions are posed. Although police interviewers in the current study
also followed a protocol with a list of predetermined questions,
they had a high degree of flexibility in their timing and sequence
of questions, in their choice of follow-up questions, and in their
personal interview style (e.g., the extent to which they established
rapport at the start of the interview). Given that the eye-closure
instruction likely influences the social dynamic during an inter-
view, we cannot exclude the possibility that police members who
interviewed witnesses who had their eyes closed adopted a differ-
ent interview style or asked somewhat different follow-up ques-
tions than interviewers in the control condition. In addition, al-
though we matched interviewers in both conditions on gender, age,
and years of experience, it remains possible that interviewers in the
control and Eye-Closure Interview conditions, respectively, dif-
fered on some other characteristic. Thus, compared with laboratory
studies, we had much less control over the potential influence
exerted by the interviewer.
An alternative explanation could be that closing the eyes inten-
sified eyewitnesses’ negative emotional experiences during the
interview, which may have nullified the cognitive benefits of
eye-closure typically observed for research participants in the
laboratory. Previous research shows that eye-closure increases the
intensity of emotions experienced while listening to negative emo-
tional music (Lerner, Papo, Zhdanov, Belozersky, & Hendler,
2009), and results in more intense negative emotions when judging
unethical scenarios (Caruso & Gino, 2011). Although our self-
report measures do not suggest that witnesses in the Eye-Closure
Interview condition were less comfortable or less relaxed than
witnesses in the control condition, it remains possible that wit-
nesses who closed their eyes experienced more negative emotions
during the interview. This scenario could also potentially explain
why reports in the Eye-Closure Interview were perceived as more
forensically relevant than reports in the control condition, and
tended to contain more details about the perpetrator but fewer
details about other aspects of the event. A more intense emotional
experience in the Eye-Closure Interview condition could have led
to an increased focus on central details (in this case, details about
the perpetrator) at the expense of peripheral details (in this case,
details unrelated to the perpetrator, M.O., or other witnesses)—
similar to the attentional narrowing effect observed when experi-
encing emotional events (see Christianson, 1992;Easterbrook,
1959). To investigate the potential role of the intensity of emotions
during the police interview, future field studies could measure
physiological arousal during the interview, provided that ethical
concerns do not prevent such measures.
Because of the nature of the field study, we could not assess the
factual accuracy of the information reported by witnesses. There-
fore, findings from the current field research must be considered in
combination with findings from more controlled studies. In the
case of the Eye-Closure Interview, previous research in controlled
settings has shown that eye-closure increases the amount of infor-
mation reported without impairing the accuracy of that informa-
tion, sometimes even improving accuracy (Perfect et al., 2008;
Vredeveldt et al., 2012,2014). The present findings make an
important contribution to the literature by showing that, in a field
setting, the Eye-Closure Interview can increase the practical value
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
195
FIELD EVALUATION OF THE EYE-CLOSURE INTERVIEW
of information reported by witnesses, as reflected in global ratings
of forensic relevance.
Nevertheless, our measures of forensic relevance were limited in
several ways. First, whether a particular piece of information is
forensically relevant often depends on the context of the case. For
example, in some cases, the mention of a particular time of day can
be of crucial importance (e.g., when it is tied to a suspect’s alibi),
whereas in other cases, the importance of this information may be
negligible. Because we were unable to obtain contextual informa-
tion about the cases, it was difficult to determine how forensically
relevant a particular detail was for that particular case. Second,
forensic relevance was confounded with the type of information:
details about the perpetrator were nearly always scored as foren-
sically relevant, whereas information in the “Other” category was
often considered not forensically relevant. This pattern was also
reflected in the difference between conditions: witnesses in the
control condition tended to report more nonrelevant information,
and also more information in the “Other” category. Third, although
reports in the Eye-Closure Interview condition received signifi-
cantly higher global ratings of perceived forensic relevance, this
pattern was not reflected in the number of highly or somewhat
relevant details. The discrepancy between the global and detail-
specific measures is most likely attributable to the fact that even a
single highly relevant detail, for example that the perpetrator had
a tattoo, could greatly influence the perceived overall forensic
relevance of the report (because this information would consider-
ably increase the likelihood of apprehending the perpetrator),
whereas it would only have a minor impact on the absolute number
of highly relevant details. Despite the limitations of our forensic
relevance measures, we believe that it is important that researchers
attempt to assess the forensic relevance of information reported by
witnesses, to make research findings more relevant to applied
contexts.
Because the primary purpose of Facial Identification Unit inter-
views is to construct a facial composite, future research with other
types of interview (e.g., designed to obtain information about the
criminal event itself) is required to assess whether the current
pattern of findings extends to different contexts. In addition, wit-
nesses in the present sample had already been interviewed about
the crime (albeit briefly) when they initially reported the crime to
the police, and potentially twice, if the case concerned a sexual
offense. An important remaining question for future research is
whether the current pattern of findings holds in initial interviews
with witnesses. In sum, the conclusions we can draw from the
present findings are limited to this specific sample of witness
interviews. Nevertheless, the current research is an important first
step in validating the effectiveness of the Eye-Closure Interview in
a field context with witnesses of serious crimes (cf. Yuille, 1993;
Yuille & Wells, 1991).
The practical implications of the combined findings from the
laboratory and the field are clear. In the laboratory, eye-closure
invariably improves either the quantity or the factual accuracy of
memory reports, or both. In the present field study, the Eye-
Closure Interview did not significantly increase the amount of
information reported by witnesses, but it significantly increased
the perceived forensic relevance of the information provided.
Thus, it seems that the Eye-Closure Interview can help witnesses
focus on what is important. In field settings, even the addition of
a single highly relevant detail (e.g., the perpetrator’s tattoo) could
have crucial consequences for the police investigation. Thus, based
on the present findings with witnesses of serious crimes, we
conclude that implementation of the Eye-Closure Interview in
police interviews may result in the acquisition of valuable infor-
mation that would not be attained by default practice.
References
Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. J. (1974). Working memory. In G. A. Bower
(Ed.), Recent advances in learning and motivation (Vol. 8, pp. 47–89).
New York, NY: Academic Press.
Caruso, E. M., & Gino, F. (2011). Blind ethics: Closing one’s eyes
polarizes moral judgments and discourages dishonest behavior. Cogni-
tion, 118, 280–285. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2010.11.008
Christianson, S. A. (1992). Emotional stress and eyewitness memory: A
critical review. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 284–309. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/0033-2909.112.2.284
Clarke, C., & Milne, R. (2001). National evaluation of the PEACE inves-
tigative interviewing course. Police Research Award Scheme. London,
UK: Home Office.
Clifford, B. R., & George, R. C. (1996). A field evaluation of training in
three methods of witness/victim investigative interviewing. Psychology,
Crime & Law, 2, 231–248. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10683169608409780
Colomb, C., Ginet, M., Wright, D. B., Demarchi, S., & Sadler, C. (2013).
Back to the real: Efficacy and perception of a Modified Cognitive
Interview in the field. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27, 574–583.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acp.2942
Cutshall, J., & Yuille, J. C. (1989). Field studies of eyewitness memory of
actual crimes. In D. C. Raskin (Ed.), Psychological methods in criminal
investigation and evidence (pp. 97–124). New York, NY: Springer.
Dando, C. J., Wilcock, R., & Milne, R. (2008). The cognitive interview:
Inexperienced police officers’ perceptions of their witness/victim inter-
viewing practices. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 13, 59–70.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/135532506X162498
Easterbrook, J. A. (1959). The effect of emotion on cue utilization and the
organization of behavior. Psychological Review, 66, 183–201. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1037/h0047707
Field, A. P. (2013). Discovering statistics using SPSS (4th ed.). London,
UK: Sage.
Fisher, R. P., & Geiselman, R. E. (1992). Memory-enhancing techniques
for investigative interviewing: The cognitive interview. Springfield, IL:
Charles Thomas.
Fisher, R. P., Geiselman, R. E., & Amador, M. (1989). Field test of the
cognitive interview: Enhancing the recollection of actual victims and
witnesses of crime. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 722–727. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.74.5.722
Geiselman, R. E., Fisher, R. P., Firstenberg, I., Hutton, L. A., Sullivan, S.,
Avetissian, I., & Prosk, A. (1984). Enhancement of eyewitness memory:
An empirical evaluation of the cognitive interview. Journal of Police
Science & Administration, 12, 74–80.
Glenberg, A. M. (1997). What memory is for. Behavioral and Brain
Sciences, 20, 1–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X97470012
Glenberg, A. M., Schroeder, J. L., & Robertson, D. A. (1998). Averting the
gaze disengages the environment and facilitates remembering. Memory
& Cognition, 26, 651–658. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03211385
Lerner, Y., Papo, D., Zhdanov, A., Belozersky, L., & Hendler, T. (2009).
Eyes wide shut: Amygdala mediates eyes-closed effect on emotional
experience with music. PLoS ONE, 4, e6230. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/
journal.pone.0006230
Memon, A., Holley, A., Milne, R., Köhnken, G., & Bull, R. (1994).
Towards understanding the effects of interviewer training in evaluating
the cognitive interview. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 8, 641–659.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acp.2350080704
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
196 VREDEVELDT ET AL.
Memon, A., Meissner, C. A., & Fraser, J. (2010). The cognitive interview:
A meta-analytic review and study space analysis of the past 25 years.
Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 16, 340–372. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/a0020518
Newlands, P. J., George, R. C., Towell, N. A., Kemp, R. I., & Clifford,
B. R. (1999). An investigation of description quality from real-life
interviews. Psychology, Crime & Law, 5, 145–166. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/10683169908414998
O’Toole, A. J., Abdi, H., Deffenbacher, K. A., & Valentin, D. (1995). A
perceptual learning theory of the information in faces. In T. Valentine
(Ed.), Cognitive and computational aspects of face recognition (Vol. 8,
pp. 159–182). London: Routledge.
Perfect, T. J., Andrade, J., & Eagan, I. (2011). Eye closure reduces the
cross-modal memory impairment caused by auditory distraction. Jour-
nal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37,
1008–1013. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0022930
Perfect, T. J., Wagstaff, G. F., Moore, D., Andrews, B., Cleveland, V.,
Newcombe, S.,...Brown, L. (2008). How can we help witnesses to
remember more? It’s an (eyes) open and shut case. Law and Human
Behavior, 32, 314–324. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10979-007-9109-5
Roberts, W. T., & Higham, P. A. (2002). Selecting accurate statements
from the cognitive interview using confidence ratings. Journal of Ex-
perimental Psychology: Applied, 8, 33–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
1076-898X.8.1.33
Statistics South Africa. (2012). Census 2011 Statistical release (P0301.4).
Vredeveldt, A., Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. J. (2012). The effects of
eye-closure and “ear-closure” on recall of visual and auditory aspects of
a criminal event. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 8, 284–299. http://
dx.doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v8i2.472
Vredeveldt, A., Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. J. (2014). The effectiveness
of eye-closure in repeated interviews. Legal and Criminological Psy-
chology, 19, 282–295. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/lcrp.12013
Vredeveldt, A., Hitch, G. J., & Baddeley, A. D. (2011). Eye closure helps
memory by reducing cognitive load and enhancing visualisation. Mem-
ory & Cognition, 39, 1253–1263. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13421-011-
0098-8
Vredeveldt, A., & Penrod, S. D. (2013). Eye-closure improves memory for
a witnessed event under naturalistic conditions. Psychology, Crime &
Law, 19, 893–905. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2012.700313
Vredeveldt, A., & Perfect, T. J. (2014). Reduction of environmental dis-
traction to facilitate cognitive performance. Frontiers in Psychology, 5,
860. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00860
Wagstaff, G. F., Brunas-Wagstaff, J., Cole, J., Knapton, L., Winterbottom,
J., Crean, V., & Wheatcroft, J. (2004). Facilitating memory with hyp-
nosis, focused meditation, and eye closure. International Journal of
Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 52, 434–455. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/00207140490889062
Woolnough, P. S., & MacLeod, M. D. (2001). Watching the birdie watch-
ing you: Eyewitness memory for actions using CCTV recordings of
actual crimes. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 15, 395–411. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1002/acp.717
Worden, N. (2011). The making of modern South Africa. Chichester, UK:
Wiley-Blackwell.
Yuille, J. C. (1993). We must study forensic eyewitnesses to know about
them. American Psychologist, 48, 572–573. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
0003-066X.48.5.572
Yuille, J. C., & Cutshall, J. L. (1986). A case study of eyewitness memory
of a crime. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 291–301. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1037/0021-9010.71.2.291
Yuille, J. C., & Wells, G. L. (1991). Concerns about the application of
research findings: The issue of ecological validity. In J. E. Doris (Ed.),
The suggestibility of children’s recollections (pp. 118–128). Washing-
ton, DC: American Psychological Association. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/10097-007
Received December 23, 2013
Revision received October 17, 2014
Accepted October 23, 2014 䡲
E-Mail Notification of Your Latest Issue Online!
Would you like to know when the next issue of your favorite APA journal will be available
online? This service is now available to you. Sign up at http://notify.apa.org/ and you will be
notified by e-mail when issues of interest to you become available!
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
197
FIELD EVALUATION OF THE EYE-CLOSURE INTERVIEW
A preview of this full-text is provided by American Psychological Association.
Content available from Law and Human Behavior
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
