Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > “Tell me more about this…”

Electronic data

  • ACP-19-0165.R1_Proof

    Accepted author manuscript, 301 KB, PDF document

    Available under license: CC BY: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

“Tell me more about this…”: An examination of the efficacy of follow-up open questions following an initial account

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Published

Standard

“Tell me more about this…” : An examination of the efficacy of follow-up open questions following an initial account. / Kontogianni, Feni; Hope, Lorraine; Taylor, Paul; Vrij, Aldert; Gabbert, Fiona.

In: Applied Cognitive Psychology, Vol. 34, No. 5, 01.09.2020, p. 972-983.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

Kontogianni, F, Hope, L, Taylor, P, Vrij, A & Gabbert, F 2020, '“Tell me more about this…”: An examination of the efficacy of follow-up open questions following an initial account', Applied Cognitive Psychology, vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 972-983. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3675

APA

Vancouver

Author

Kontogianni, Feni ; Hope, Lorraine ; Taylor, Paul ; Vrij, Aldert ; Gabbert, Fiona. / “Tell me more about this…” : An examination of the efficacy of follow-up open questions following an initial account. In: Applied Cognitive Psychology. 2020 ; Vol. 34, No. 5. pp. 972-983.

Bibtex

@article{0ca8869bdcaa4ceea6b95774103d8982,
title = "“Tell me more about this…”: An examination of the efficacy of follow-up open questions following an initial account",
abstract = "In information gathering interviews, follow‐up questions are asked to clarify and extend initial witness accounts. Across two experiments, we examined the efficacy of open‐ended questions following an account about a multi‐perpetrator event. In Experiment 1, 50 mock‐witnesses used the timeline technique or a free recall format to provide an initial account. Although follow‐up questions elicited new information (18–22% of the total output) across conditions, the response accuracy (60%) was significantly lower than that of the initial account (83%). In Experiment 2 (N = 60), half of the participants received pre‐questioning instructions to monitor accuracy when responding to follow‐up questions. New information was reported (21–22% of the total output) across conditions, but despite using pre‐questioning instructions, response accuracy (75%) was again lower than the spontaneously reported information (87.5%). Follow‐up open‐ended questions prompt additional reporting; however, practitioners should be cautious to corroborate the accuracy of new reported details.",
keywords = "accuracy‐informativeness trade‐off, eliciting information, follow‐up questions, timeline technique",
author = "Feni Kontogianni and Lorraine Hope and Paul Taylor and Aldert Vrij and Fiona Gabbert",
year = "2020",
month = sep,
day = "1",
doi = "10.1002/acp.3675",
language = "English",
volume = "34",
pages = "972--983",
journal = "Applied Cognitive Psychology",
issn = "0888-4080",
publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Ltd",
number = "5",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - “Tell me more about this…”

T2 - An examination of the efficacy of follow-up open questions following an initial account

AU - Kontogianni, Feni

AU - Hope, Lorraine

AU - Taylor, Paul

AU - Vrij, Aldert

AU - Gabbert, Fiona

PY - 2020/9/1

Y1 - 2020/9/1

N2 - In information gathering interviews, follow‐up questions are asked to clarify and extend initial witness accounts. Across two experiments, we examined the efficacy of open‐ended questions following an account about a multi‐perpetrator event. In Experiment 1, 50 mock‐witnesses used the timeline technique or a free recall format to provide an initial account. Although follow‐up questions elicited new information (18–22% of the total output) across conditions, the response accuracy (60%) was significantly lower than that of the initial account (83%). In Experiment 2 (N = 60), half of the participants received pre‐questioning instructions to monitor accuracy when responding to follow‐up questions. New information was reported (21–22% of the total output) across conditions, but despite using pre‐questioning instructions, response accuracy (75%) was again lower than the spontaneously reported information (87.5%). Follow‐up open‐ended questions prompt additional reporting; however, practitioners should be cautious to corroborate the accuracy of new reported details.

AB - In information gathering interviews, follow‐up questions are asked to clarify and extend initial witness accounts. Across two experiments, we examined the efficacy of open‐ended questions following an account about a multi‐perpetrator event. In Experiment 1, 50 mock‐witnesses used the timeline technique or a free recall format to provide an initial account. Although follow‐up questions elicited new information (18–22% of the total output) across conditions, the response accuracy (60%) was significantly lower than that of the initial account (83%). In Experiment 2 (N = 60), half of the participants received pre‐questioning instructions to monitor accuracy when responding to follow‐up questions. New information was reported (21–22% of the total output) across conditions, but despite using pre‐questioning instructions, response accuracy (75%) was again lower than the spontaneously reported information (87.5%). Follow‐up open‐ended questions prompt additional reporting; however, practitioners should be cautious to corroborate the accuracy of new reported details.

KW - accuracy‐informativeness trade‐off

KW - eliciting information

KW - follow‐up questions

KW - timeline technique

U2 - 10.1002/acp.3675

DO - 10.1002/acp.3675

M3 - Journal article

VL - 34

SP - 972

EP - 983

JO - Applied Cognitive Psychology

JF - Applied Cognitive Psychology

SN - 0888-4080

IS - 5

ER -