How Reliable are Sasquatch Databases? A Review of Literature on Witness Interviewing

When investigating a reported sasquatch sighting, a researcher interviews the witness and forms an opinion on whether they feel the witness is being truthful or not. Most research groups depend on this opinion in making a determination on whether or not to add the sighting to a database or release it to the public. The obvious question in this scenario is: how accurate is this researcher’s opinion?

If the researcher can determine with a high level of accuracy the validity of the claim, then the database may well provide information germane to the field of sasquatch research. However, if the level of accuracy falls more in the realm of chance, the database becomes highly corrupted and of little value.

It is important to consider this quandary from an empirical perspective. The fields of law enforcement and psychology offer an empirical basis from which to form an educated perspective. The purpose of this review is to examine the empirical studies provided by these fields in regards to witness interviewing and examine how it relates to the field of sasquatch research.

From a layman’s perspective, law enforcement and psychology are not interrelated. However, upon closer examination, a relationship exists and continues to grow as more psychologists and criminologists research best practices in witness interviewing. Furthermore, the field of forensic psychology has become a hybrid of both disciplines, and has been instrumental in establishing a dialogue between the two. Kocsis (2006) commented that forensic psychology can be conceived of as being at a disciplinary crossroads between the practice of psychology and law. According to Kocsis “This conceptualization predominantly encapsulates activities where psychologists operate within the legal system (both criminal and civil) for the purpose of undertaking various psychological assessments of a client and then presenting these findings for consideration in the context of legal proceedings” (Ibid., p. 727).

Purpose of Review

The focus of this literature review is to explore the different interviewing strategies adopted by both law enforcement and psychology and describe best practices per empirical data. In doing so, a determination as to the accuracy of sasquatch researchers, and thus sasquatch databases can be determined beyond mere conjecture. Also, best practices will be reviewed as to the most accurate form of interviewing a witness to procure accurate and meaningful data.

Defining the Cognitive Interview

A relatively new and successful form of witness interviewing has been created within the realm of forensic psychology. It is known as the cognitive interview (CI). The CI is named such because it consists of four cognitively based memory retrieval enhancement techniques (Aldridge, 1999). These techniques include context reinstatement, free recall, recall in different orders, and recall from different views and perspectives.

According to Aldridge (1999), during the context reinstatement portion of the interview, the witness is asked to form a mental image of the environment. This should include the location, where subjects were, and what he or she was feeling and thinking at the time of the event. The witness should be encouraged to recall sensory information such as noises, smells, and temperature, as well (Ibid., p. 106).

The interviewer also encourages the witness to report everything, even if they think the information is not important or pertinent. Eyewitnesses may not know what is relevant to an investigation. Also, irrelevant information may lead to the recall of partial or more relevant information (Ibid., p. 107).

Next the witness is asked to try and recall the event in a variety of ways and orders. Most witnesses tend to recall information in chronological order. In the CI, the witness is encouraged to recall information in reverse order as well. The witness may also start from the middle and work towards the end or go from middle and work towards the beginning (Ibid., p. 107).

Last, the witness is encouraged by the interviewer to recall information from a variety of views and perspectives. The subject is asked what other people present could have seen or heard from their perspective. They are also asked to consider how the event would appear from different points of view and different perspectives (Ibid., p. 107).

The CI has become an investigative tool for police agencies around the world. Some suggest that these techniques are incorrectly used in the field (Alison & Howard, 2005). “Field studies suggest that investigators tend to make several common mistakes. These include interrupting the interviewee, monopolizing on the amount of time spent talking, asking leading and/or closed questions, and making assumptions about the interviewee’s claims” (Ibid., p. 116).

The efficacy of the CI has been demonstrated, starting with the earliest research (see Geiselman, Fisher, MacKinnon, & Holland, 1985). Stein and Memon (2006) concluded that CI techniques demonstrated significant increases in the number of correct details reported by witnesses. Geiselman, et al. (1985) compared the CI to hypnotic techniques of memory retrieval. Their results indicated equally effective outcomes and suggested a preference for the CI because training time and instructions were less time consuming.