|
Memory
Reconstruction
If
we do not attend to something it is generally lost to memory
(Cherry, 1953; Moray, 1959). Intense fixation of attention
on a particular aspect of a critical incident can cause
vivid memories in some areas, but by definition this focused
attending in one area will cause a reduction in attending
(and thus to memory) in all other areas.
If
a group debriefing is conducted 24 hours after an incident
(preferably after an individual debrief), then the exchange
of information within the group will serve as legitimate
memory cues which will greatly aid in memory retrieval.
Additionally, there is strong evidence that the moods and
emotions generated by reliving an experience will generate
accurate memories (Diamond, 1969; Kaiser, 1970; Bower, Monteiro,
and Gilligan, 1978; Bower & Gilligan, 1979; Teasdale & Fogerty,
1979; Bower, 1981; Blaney, 1986; Chang, 1986). Indeed, one
research team has speculated that when victims of violent
crimes have trouble recalling details of the experience,
it may be in part because they are far less emotionally
aroused than they were at the time of the crime (Clark,
Milberg, & Erber, 1987).
Most
of this memory reconstruction will be legitimate, but from
this point on (and particularly after another night's sleep
in which the group debrief is process into memory during
REM sleep) there is a slight but increasingly significant
danger of memory contamination.
The
desire for the brain to seek patterns and sense out of chaos
is powerful, fundamental, and basic to human nature. Hobson
(1988) states that the brain "is so inexorably bent upon
the quest for meaning that it attributes and even creates
meaning when there is little or none to be found in the
data." This process of creating memory and meaning is the
basis for much memory contamination, and it must be constantly
taken into consideration in law enforcement procedures.
Contamination occurs when information outside actual experience
is integrated into the reconstruction of memory. This is
an inevitable process in most memory reconstructions, and
if reliable information (for example, the narratives of
fellow law enforcement officers on the scene) is incorporated
into the reconstruction process it can be very helpful in
ensuring that the most accurate possible picture is preserved
(Loftus, 1979a; Loftus, Miller, & Burns, 1978; Loftus &
Green, 1980).
Furthermore,
there is evidence that the influence of outside factors
in contaminating information will be greater over time (Loftus,
Miller & Burns, 1978) if the information is not locked into
memory by recounting it (Loftus, 1977).
Applications
and Implications to Law Enforcement
The
implications of critical incident amnesia on law enforcement
are profound, and it is vital that procedures be established
which will ensure that the most accurate and most complete
memories are protected and preserved as a part of standard
procedures. The following procedures are recommended:
1.
Educate all officers on the effects of stress on memory,
in order to ensure that they understand and apply the procedures
outlined below. This education process is also vital to
reduce guilt and confusion over memory loss, and to reduce
the potential for post-traumatic stress disorder.
Administrators,
internal affairs personnel and prosecutors should also be
educated so that all individuals are working together to
ensure that the most accurate possible information is being
retained.
2.
An initial post-incident interview (or debriefing, or report)
should be conducted as soon as reasonably possible after
a critical incident. This should be a quick narrative review
of what occurred, and it should be remembered that it is
very likely a subject (officer, victim, or bystander) will
not remember the majority of events that occurred in the
incident.
The
subject can generally be expected to recall:
a. Type of weapon (handgun, knife) but not the characteristics
of the weapon.
b. General information about the suspect.
c. General details about the encounter.
These
interviews should probably be tape recorded and transcribed,
since the residual sympathetic nervous system effects on
fine motor control will often make hand written reports
illegible. Of course, during this and all other interviews,
the interviewers should make a conscious effort not to contaminate
the process by suggesting ideas about the crime or the suspect
to any witnesses.
The
interviews should be conducted on an individual basis, and
reasonable efforts should be made to ensure that the subject
is isolated from other sources of information (such as news
reports or other witnesses) until the next interview, which
will take place after a good night's sleep.
Every
effort should be made to ensure that the subject receives
a healthy night's sleep after the incident. Drugs which
are administered to the subject (sleeping pills, anesthesia,
etc.) should be held to a minimum and should be screened
by a physician for potential impact on memory retention.
3.
After the first sleep period (generally 24 hours later)
the subject should be interviewed again, and the subject
can be expected to remember the majority of the details
regarding the incident and to refine many of the fine points.
In the case of law enforcement officers a written report
at this time may be appropriate, and it should be understood
that the officer may add significantly to his or her earlier
statements.
4.
A group interview or group debriefing should then be conducted
as soon as reasonably possible after completion of the second
set of individual interviews. The memories related in the
second interview may be the most pure, but the subject will
almost certainly not recover all available memory of the
incident until exposed to the retrieval cues that can be
provided by other witnesses.
It
is important that the subject get a chance to formally complete
this process in an environment in which each individual
is required to completely relate their experiences and observations.
Very often this environment will create comments such as,
"So that's what that was, I saw that too!" The ultimate
goal of this process should be to completely reconstruct
the entire critical incident.
This
kind of group debriefing was pioneered by Brigadier General
S.L.A. Marshall in WWII where it was found to be extraordinarily
effective at achieving a complete picture of what occurred
in combat situations (Marshall, 1978). Recently the U.S.
Army has created Combat Stress Teams which are assigned
at brigade level in every combat unit. These teams have
the responsibility to conduct post-combat debriefings of
the sort pioneered by Marshall.
It
has been demonstrated that in this group interview environment,
individuals are very careful to tell exactly the truth,
even when it reflects poorly upon themselves, since they
know that others are there who can catch them at any misrepresentation
of the event (Williams, F.D., 1990).
Thus,
the post-combat group interview provides the most accurate
and truthful information, in the best possible environment
to trigger recall of important data. It also allows the
maximum possible training and learning value and the applications
of lessons learned which will assist officers in the execution
of their duties in the years to come.
But,
perhaps the most important aspect of this group debriefing
is that it is considered to be the single most powerful
therapeutic tool in preventing post-traumatic stress disorder
(Belenke, G., 1996). The moral requirement to provide the
therapeutic aspects of this vital group debriefing has been
essentially acknowledged by the U.S. military, and law enforcement
agencies are probably under increasing legal liability for
any post-traumatic responses which would occur among law
enforcement officers who have not been given this opportunity.
Because of this mental health aspect, it is reasonable that
mental health professionals should be present during group
interviews. However, the overall objectives of the mental
health practitioner, the prosecutor, the internal affairs
officer, and the criminal investigator are all the same
in this interview: to simply find out what happened. One
experienced individual should be placed in charge of the
interview, and he or she should guide the group toward the
objective of reconstructing the incident and extracting
all available information. Mental health practitioners should
address any additional requirements in subsequent group
or individual sessions.
The
only negative aspect of the group debrief is the potential
for contamination in the reconstruction process. This danger
is slight, but, nevertheless it must be acknowledged that
there is potential for individuals to accept the memories
of others (which may or may not be correct) as their own
in the reconstruction process. It must be pointed out that
this is inevitable in any memory reconstruction, and by
formalizing this group process it can be ensured that the
individuals will be basing their reconstructions on the
best possible information.
5.
To be absolutely thorough in the information collection
process, it is recommended that a second group interview
be conducted 48-to-72 hours after the incident. This will
permit one or two nights' sleep to process the data presented
in the group debriefing, and should therefore provide an
opportunity for the most thorough and complete memories
to come forward. At this time, the possibility for contamination
is greater, but if the process has been properly handled,
the contamination should be minimal, and far less than would
have occurred if this overall process had not been followed
systematically.
Conclusion
The overall application of a scientific understanding of
memory processes in a law enforcement environment has potential
for tremendous payoff. From better quality eyewitness accounts,
to lessons learned and applied, to the long term mental
health of the participants, the payoff is simply enormous.
The price for failing to apply these lessons is equally
enormous, and the victims of such a failure will inevitably
include citizens, officers, the community and, ultimately,
Justice.
|
|
|
|
Read
a different article:
|
© 1999 by Academic Press. All rights of reproduction
in any form reserved.
|
