Loading summary
Transcript187 lines
- [00:00]
A
Foreign.
- [00:14]
B
Hey, everybody. Welcome to ABA Inside Track, the podcast that's like reading in your car, but safer. I'm your host, Robert Perry Crews, and I think there's someone with me. Is someone there with me?
- [00:28]
C
I'm here.
- [00:30]
B
Are you sure?
- [00:30]
A
You're here? Really?
- [00:32]
D
I'm not sure, actually. Maybe I'm not actually here.
- [00:35]
B
What's your name?
- [00:36]
D
My name is Jackie McDonald.
- [00:39]
B
Someone told me that's not your name.
- [00:41]
D
I mean, I'll go buy anything you want.
- [00:46]
B
All right, good. I like that answer. And my. My other fabulous co host, I'm not
- [00:51]
C
at all impressionable, and my name's Diana Perry Cruz.
- [00:54]
B
That's exactly your name. Good job. Thanks for sharing.
- [00:57]
C
Thank you.
- [00:57]
B
I heard this co host is really great and everyone should listen. Oh, anyway, folks, I'm sorry. You know, I'm trying something out. You know, we've been a podcast about behavior analysis and behavior analytic research where every week we pick a topic and discuss it at length. But, you know, I. I'm kind of trying out some new tricks. We've done this, like, for 10 years. I need some new. I need some new interview questions. You know, I was watching some old TV shows and I was trying to get, like, new ideas of how to ask questions. So I'm. I'm trying some out. I don't know if they're any good. I feel like maybe I'm not getting good answers from them sometimes, but I wasn't sure why. So. Fortunately, we have a guest on today who's going to help us learn a little bit more about forensic interviewing. And that is special guest Dr. Ray Joslin. Ray, thank you so much for bringing this topic to our attention as something that we. There's research on in behavior analysis and then talking about it with us.
- [01:49]
A
Yeah, thanks for having me on.
- [01:50]
B
So, Ray, I'd love to hear a little bit more about your background as well as how you became interested in studying this topic.
- [01:59]
A
Okay. How much time do you have? So I kind of got. So I'll just kind of go back to, like, college. Basically. I kind of accidentally, like most people I know, kind of accidentally discovered behavior analysis. I just happened to be an undergrad at the University of Florida. I was, like, a psych major doing pre med. And then for my psych major, I took this elective class called Applied Behavior Analysis. And Tim Volmer was the professor. And I remember, like, I distinctly remember when I was in the class being like, man, this is so easy. He, like, gives us the answers. These learning objectives that he gives out are like, exactly what's on the test. This is awesome. And so I really liked that approach. And I, you know, took every class that I could with, with him or like in another, you know, faculty from the behavior analysis department. And then I ended up volunteering to work as like an undergraduate research assistant in his lab. I was always pretty interested in crime and delinquency, generally speaking. So my first undergrad research experience in Tim's lab was at this place called the SIGE Unit, which is a secure residential treatment facility for offenders with intellectual disabilities. And so I was, I was out there for a couple of years. Then there was kind of like a funding mix up or the, you know, the program lost funding. And so I pivoted to going out and working at an alternative school where, you know, a lot of the kids had interaction with law enforcement, would be considered delinquent or pre delinquent depending on your, you know, preferred nomenclature. So I kind of finished out my PhD program there and then I did a lot. I kind of got into working in alternative ed because I really like the kids and I like the environment and like how much change you can see very quickly by just rearranging some contingencies. And so I got very much into good behavior game, group contingencies, that sort of thing. And one of my favorite things about good behavior game is that it has. There's a pretty good literature base that suggests that it can have long term beneficial effects for kids who are exposed to it at a young age. And I think this has, you know, I don't. They're. We're working on it, but we don't have any data that suggests this. But I think it's probably got something to do with impulsivity or you know, delayed discounting, things like that where you can kind of teach them basically like delay tolerance, you know, that sort of thing. And that kind of helps out later in life because a lot of the crime has. Has a lot to do with impulsive behavior. So. So I was doing that for a while and I. There was this one paper, I think I read it in grad school because I wrote like one of my. For my qualifying exam I wrote a paper about behavior analysis and crime and delinquency. So I read everything there was around on the topic and one of the papers I ran into was. This was the Sparling et al PA paper where they. Where they looked at the different antecedents and consequences in like a kind of analog forensic interview. It was just a brief report, so it's like a pretty short paper. But it was super interesting. And so I always, like, every once in a while, I would think back to that study and be like, man, that'd be really cool to do something like that. And so when I was at Utah State, I had an opportunity to do kind of like a replication of that study, and my PhD student at the time, Milad, was interested in doing it, and so we just kind of went for it. And it was really interesting to kind of, like, be there, observe the sessions, see the data coming in. And we got, you know, we saw some similar things to the Sparling paper, but we also saw a lot of kids who weren't super sensitive to the, you know, the interviewer behavior, which actually made me even more interested in it because the idiosyncratic effects were so big. And so now I'm out at West Virginia University now, and I have some students in my lab, both graduate and undergraduate, who are very much into this stuff. And so we have a lot of people interested in the area, and we're just kind of doing a bunch of different kind of studies, looking at different things, and we're. We're finding interesting stuff, so we're. We're just kind of going for it.
- [06:51]
B
Oh, that's. That's. That's really great how you kind of came to that through your experience. I was sort of wondering, like, were you just watching, like, old NYPD Blue episodes? And we're like, what's going on with these guys? Like, they've got to be doing something wrong. I'm sure it has.
- [07:03]
A
I'm sure. Like, I would say it was probably Law and Order svu, because I, you know, that show is always on some channel somewhere. It's on right now, but. Yeah, and so, like, I was always interested in that. That side of it. And, you know, you. You see these. If you remember that documentary that was out, it was, like, really big. It was called Making a Murderer. It was about, like, these dudes who got kind of railroaded by the police. And there was all. There were all these questions of did they coerce a false confession from this. This young guy who may have had an intellectual disability? And so all that stuff. And so the false confession thing is of great interest to me as well.
- [07:47]
B
Yeah.
- [07:48]
A
And so, you know, there are barriers to studying that from a behavior analytic perspective. But I think, yeah, we. We can. We can get around most of those, I think, and get some empirical data and at least get started on the. On the question.
- [08:03]
B
So, yeah, so we have four articles that we'll be discussing today which might be the breadth of forensic interviewing research in behavior analytic field. Ray, is this all of them?
- [08:16]
A
Oh, that's all we've been able to find.
- [08:18]
B
Yeah. I love an episode where it's like. And that's everything.
- [08:22]
A
I know it's not everything, but it's
- [08:24]
B
everything in the field directly. Diana, what. What are we going to be discussing today?
- [08:29]
C
All right, I'm going to tell you these in teleological order. So they include social antecedents of children's eyewitness testimony, a single subject experimental analysis by Depke, Henderson and Critchfield that was published in Java 2003. Also, effects of Interviewer Behavior on Accuracy of Children's Responses by Sparling, Wilder, King, Pondash, Boyle and Compton. And that was also in Java 2011. And idiosyncratic effects of Interviewer Behavior on the Accuracy of Children's Responses by Naja, Fishagabori, Joslyn and Preston. That was also in Java in the year 2024. And finally we have an. Is this a dissertation? I'm so sorry.
- [09:20]
A
It's a. It was like an undergraduate capstone project, but it actually was accepted with minor revisions at Java, like last week.
- [09:33]
C
All right, all right, very good. So I'll go ahead and tell you about it then. It's the Effects of Adversarial Questioning on Response Accuracy and Analog Forensic Interviews. So that's Moon and Joslin, and it is accept, slash and press.
- [09:50]
B
All right, so, Ray, why don't we start a little bit because it's. It's mentioned in all of the papers that the kind of. The science of forensic interviewing has been studied. It's not like there's only four papers that anyone's ever cared about this subject. But it hasn't been studied by behavior analysts. Meaning it's probably been some sort of, you know, like a big group design or they've looked at it and gotten some sort of, you know, reflections of police officers or. I don't know, something like that.
- [10:15]
C
I loved that loft. Like Elizabeth Loftus work. Like, I learned about that when I was in undergrad.
- [10:21]
B
Oh, this is. Well, this Loftus is new to me.
- [10:24]
C
Oh, yeah?
- [10:24]
B
What do we got out there?
- [10:25]
A
What else.
- [10:26]
B
What was there?
- [10:26]
C
That's not interviewing. That was eyewitness testimony.
- [10:28]
B
Sure, but what was there before this? Like, how have other people studied it? I. I know in the. The. The. The Moon and Josin paper, there's a discussion of, like, the different interviewing techniques. And it always has that. You say forensic, you assume, well, there must be so much research because the word forensic sounds so, so sciencey.
- [10:47]
A
Yeah. And so that's a really good question. And I think, like, before I did a dive into it, I thought there was more, you know, generally just like in the scientific literature, there's a lot, don't get me wrong, but it's not like they've got it figured out totally. Like, the vast majority, like I. I would say probably with the exception of the four articles that you've mentioned, were done using group designs. And so there are. They essentially will like, arrange some contrived situation and then. Or, you know, ask the people who experienced the, you know, event or whatever that they arrange questions using different formats. So for the. I'm trying to think. For the Loftus ones, she did a lot of different things. But I think one of the ones that you probably remember from your undergraduate psychology courses are the ones where they looked at. They would show the participants a car accident.
- [11:47]
C
Yeah.
- [11:48]
A
And then they would ask them how fast was the car going when it smashed into the other car? Or they would ask how fast was the car going when it bumped into the other car. And so they would use these, like, different intensities of, you know, a verb meaning to crash into or whatever. And so they found that when they used like, more intense verbs, they reported a higher speed. And so you have this sort of. I've been using the term malleability, and it's not like the most behavioral term, I think perhaps yet, but I think it kind of describes the generalized kind of sensitivity that people have to others. Verbal behavior when they're like, responding in an interview. So there's that stuff. And then some of the. They're actually really interesting to read because some of them will do something where there's a classroom, maybe a first grade classroom, and like a researcher goes in there wearing a big floppy hat and like, does some crazy stuff and like reads them a book and, you know, does some very memorable things so that, you know, the kids will remember that the person who came and then they'll ask them, they'll put them into two groups and they'll ask one of the groups, you know, straightforward, neutral questions. And then they'll ask another group leading questions or something like that. And, you know, or they'll show them videos or something like that. I think it's a lot easier to use videos and. And I don't know that the. You get probably a little more ecological validity when it's an event that you personally experience rather than something you watch. But it's. I would imagine it's pretty difficult to Arrange the, you know, the contrived event sometimes.
- [13:34]
B
I mean universities, you know, we're seeing a lot of colleges closing around here. I don't think they have the budget for floppy hats and like crazy shoes or whatever these days. So I understand the pivot to video, it's got to happen sometimes.
- [13:47]
A
It just allows also for more control over, you know, making sure participants are, you know, encountering the same stimuli and things like that. Because if I had to do the floppy hat thing like 10 times, I'm sure there would be some variance in how I did it. I would really love to do that, but I haven't found an excuse to yet.
- [14:07]
C
No, I'm picturing like a Crusty the Clown type of.
- [14:10]
A
Yeah. Is that what you imagine me looking like with a floppy hat on? I can't really debate. I can't argue that.
- [14:21]
B
I always think of the one. They show this one a lot in public schools. You know, when they're hurting for a video for a PD day, they're like, let's talk about focus. And then, you know, count the basketballs bouncing and then a monkey jumps across the stage. Like who noticed there was a gorilla dancing or something. Yeah, yeah, I always think of that one. I was thinking about that pretty much the whole time I was reading these articles actually.
- [14:41]
A
Yeah. And that gorilla. And that's kind of the, the vast majority of the studies you'll find in the group design literature are something like one of those scenarios. And so usually there, there are two groups, maybe three groups. They'll present neutral questions which are just kind of like presented without bias in the words, like was the guy wearing a hat? So yes or no, they might present open ended questions like was the guy wearing anything on his head? Or what was the guy wearing on his head? I guess would be, would be better. And so you've got like your binary answers. Yes, no, you have open ended. You can lead the witness, so to speak, in a bunch of different ways. And so the, the Sparling and the Depke ones used a couple of different approaches. And so like in the Sparling paper they had suggestive and then they had co witness. So in a co witness question you basically say, well this other person saw it. Didn't you see it? Or you know, my friend said this is what happened. Is that what happened? And in a suggestive one you would say like this is what happened? Right. So you've kind of got those. And then re questioning or repeating the question is another tactic which could be debated whether it's an antecedent or a consequence approach Because I believe in the Sparling paper they presented the re questioning was non contingent. So it didn't matter what they said, they would just repeat the question. Some of the stuff we're doing right now we're doing the requestioning contingent on whatever a particular response. And so if you're trying to lead them to a particular answer and they give you that answer and you're like a detective trying to get that answer, you're not going to ask them again after they've already given you the answer. So that's what we're kind of working on right now. But in the Nejafi Chongaburi paper we also did the non contingent core question repeating.
- [16:52]
B
So, so I was, I was really curious Ray, because you know, it, it does seem like these questions can have impacts on accuracy or inaccuracy of answers. There are a lot of other variables in play. I think you mentioned like the length of time between, you know, what the individual is being asked about. Age seems to be a factor. The type of question though does seem to be a factor. I was really shocked that given there were these other group design studies, there would even be like. I think you, I think you mentioned it in, in the, the, the Moon and Jocelyn paper. The, the Reed interrogation technique, like there would actually be techniques that specifically tell you or at least, you know, point you to. You can ask questions like these. I mean, is it more a matter of there's just too many findings that are sort of all over the place or is there something more pernicious about it? Like, well, if you want people to answer your questions, wink, wink, here's how you do it.
- [17:49]
A
Yeah, the Reid technique is really interesting. If you are bored one day and you want to read about it, it's really, it's interesting. So I think I've kind of, I haven't like read the entire Reed interrogation manual, but I have, you know, read some articles about it and looked through some of the content on like the steps and the different phases and things like that. And there are things in the, in their book or in the manual where they'll say, you know, you look at the evidence that you have before. So like you do an initial meeting with a person and you like look at the evidence before you go into the meeting and then you have this kind of like meet and greet basically and then you. From that and their behavior in that you decide if they're guilty or not. And if you think they're guilty when you then interrogate them when you subsequently interrogate them. You are going for the confession if you think they did it. So that's your goal. And the way that it's presented is it's not like you're trying to get them to say what you want them to say. You're trying to get them to tell you the truth because you know that they're guilty. And so the way that it's kind of presented in the manual is like, you're right. You just have to, have to figure out how to get them to say, to confess to this thing that, you
- [19:10]
B
know, that they did.
- [19:11]
A
And so I think over time, the, the method has probably changed a little bit, and I think there's kind of variations and stuff like that. But the, if you look at the website or read the book, they, they say that it's the most widely used interrogation method in North America, things like that. So even if their company hasn't trained the detectives in a certain precinct to use this method, it's likely that they have observed somebody using the method or in some way it's worked its way into their detective repertoire. I think maybe they don't go by the book every single step all the way through, but they're going to probably use some methods from that to try to steer interrogations in their direction.
- [20:01]
B
Okay. So they're starting not with a hypothesis, they're starting with, with the. The fact is, I'm right. And then you just got to find the questions that lead to getting that, that evidence in terms of their, their, their responses, regardless of accuracy.
- [20:16]
A
Yes.
- [20:17]
B
You're assuming accuracy is on your side.
- [20:20]
A
Yeah. I mean, so, so basically they say, you know, you, you look at the facts, you think about how they behaved in the initial meeting, and you decide, you know, did they do this or didn't, didn't they? And if you're like, pretty sure, you go for it. And so the manual will talk also about, let me think, they'll talk also about, you know, how to refute their denials of guilt, and they'll talk about how to keep them in the room even if they want to leave and it's against their best interest to stay in the room and things like that. And so, you know, I'm sure there are scenarios in which you have somebody who's definitely guilty and like, you're trying to get them to confess, but the whole thing is that they're innocent until proven guilty. And so you have, you have a little bit of a misalignment there. And so the, I think for a long time, this notion of like false confessions and witnesses being malleable to the people who are asking the questions. That either wasn't a super prominent issue. People may not have thought it was as common as it is, but as researchers started to kind of look into it, you know, there's a ton of evidence that says that, you know, eyewitness testimony, eyewitness identification can be contaminated is a word that they use a lot in the literature. There's this guy actually last year at abai, we saw this guy named John Wickstead who does. He's kind of like a neuro forensic guy. And he kind of looks at basically when is eyewitness testimony reliable? And it actually is reliable if you get it right after or as soon as possible after they see the thing and you ask neutral questions and they, they are confident about their answers. And so he would say or I don't. Well, I don't, I'm not going to say what he would say. But if you read it, if you read his articles or if you go to his talks, it's basically like the, the contamination, so to speak, would happen, you know, when, if you witness a murder, for example, you're not going to testify in court about that murder for like years maybe. And so the contamination happens during the, you know, know the time between the event and the courtroom. So by the time you're in the courtroom, you've been asked about this event like a thousand times by a bunch of different people. And all. Every single interaction you have about that and the way that people ask you about it influences how you're going to respond to it. And so by the time it comes time to testify, oftentimes people are saying like the opposite of what they said right afterwards. And so if you look at like the Innocence Project, which is like a nonprofit organization that tries to get people out of prison who are wrongfully convicted. I can't remember the exact stat off the top of my head, but the staggering number of cases that they overturn are at, at least influenced, if not like almost decided by faulty eyewitness testimony. Hi.
- [23:43]
D
Do you want to be a bcba, also known as a board Certified Behavior Analyst?
- [23:48]
C
Sure, we all do.
- [23:50]
D
Now you can come to Regis College in Weston, Massachusetts to get your graduate degree just minutes outside of Boston.
- [23:56]
C
Choose from any one of these courses.
- [23:58]
D
Masters of Science in Applied Behavior Analysis,
- [24:01]
C
Master's of Science in Special Education, dual degree in Special Ed and aba, or
- [24:06]
D
be eligible for your Postmaster Certificate.
- [24:09]
C
You can complete your degree and be ready to sit for the exam in
- [24:12]
D
two years and our 2022 graduates had a 92% pass rate on the BACB exam.
- [24:18]
C
Come enjoy approved fieldwork placements, ethics, mini handbooks, PhD levels, professors, small class sizes, and a service trip to Iceland if interested.
- [24:27]
D
And don't forget, our program is accredited by the association of Behavior Analysis International or abai, and as a tier one master's degree program.
- [24:36]
C
Don't delay. Supplies are limited. Learn more at regiscollege.edu.
- [24:41]
D
again, that's www.regiscollege.edu.
- [24:45]
C
regiscollege.edu.
- [24:48]
D
One more time, www.regiscollege dot edu.
- [24:52]
C
See you there.
- [25:00]
B
Hey, everyone. Sorry to interrupt the episode, but I wanted to remind all of our listeners that ABA insidetrack is ACE and Kwaba approved. By listening to this episode, you're able to earn one learning ce. All you need to do is finish listening and then go to our website, ABA InsideTrack.com or click the link in your podcast player to be whisked away to a fabulous location where you can find links to the articles we've discussed, as well as a little quiz you're going to need to take about the content of the episode and our two secret code words. These are special guest code words from Dr. Jocelyn. The first one is Clyde. C, L Y D E. Sort of like if you were interviewing Bonnie and Clyde, you'd say you stole the money from the banks.
- [25:43]
A
Right.
- [25:44]
B
To get them to confess.
- [25:45]
A
Huh?
- [25:46]
B
Right.
- [25:47]
C
You never catch me.
- [25:48]
A
See? Oh.
- [25:49]
B
Oh, Clyde, you rascal.
- [25:52]
A
Clyde.
- [25:53]
B
All right, let's get back to our interview. So I, I definitely want to keep talking about these types of questions, but one thing I wanted to sort of jump back to a little bit is what do you find behavior analysis might have to add to this literature? I mean, certainly this is a socially significant issue. I mean, we're talking about, you know, criminal investigations. We're talking about whether someone is found innocent or guilty, is sentenced to prison time, you know, so, so we're talking about things very important for kind of the, the, the, the weave of society, you know, how we, how we manage to uphold laws fairly so it definitely has a, has a place in terms of, I think a remit of, of how to use, you know, our science. But are there other pieces that you felt like when you were studying it that went beyond like, I, I want to study this, you know, that you're like, there's so much, I think our field adds to what we know about forensic interviewing.
- [26:50]
A
Yeah. So I think the, the thing that really grabbed me initially was the, the idiosyncrasies that you see across individuals that you, that participate in these single case design studies. So if you read the group design literature, they'll, they basically, you know, they basically take these groups of Kentucky and they ask them neutral questions and then they ask them, so there's like a kind of a, maybe two data points per kid. And then they will look at, you know, means and things like that, which is like massively generalizable because they have so many participants. But when they're not taking repeated measures and they're not looking at differences between participants, the conclusions that you can draw as like somebody who maybe is, and someone who interrogates people like for a living, you get these general recommendations on like, you know, this tends to cause people to give the wrong, give inaccurate information. But what we're finding is that it's, it's very nuanced. So different individuals are more or less sensitive to different approaches and different contingencies and stuff like that. So that's really interesting. And then also kind of looking at what about these potentially problematic interrogation techniques? What are the key variables that are affecting behavior? So if we can kind of pull some functional relations out of these scenarios and say, like, wow, when it's really this aspect of it, that's super problematic. And we can understand the underlying behavioral mechanisms of why questions worded this way or, you know, your reaction to the interviewees answers to your question, what's controlling that? That would be really big because then you can, you can look at things. So for example, I'll use an example. If you look at like an Innocence Project case, they might have like a transcript of a, of an interview or they might have a video recording of an interview or something that somebody, you know, that the, the person in prison experienced. And if you can look at that and kind of point to specific things that the police are doing that this individual is sensitive to, or if you can do an assessment with a kid before they go and testify in court and, you know, indicate that they're particularly sensitive to this type of interview question or that, like they really quickly allocate their responding to match with the interviewer or that they don't and they're not sensitive to that, that would, that would speak a lot to, you know, the potential utility of their testimony or the potential issues with testimony and stuff like that.
- [29:43]
B
Okay. That is, I mean, it's, it's fascinating to think of how that that potency could be there and certainly thinking about it in terms of kind of typical behavioral processes, because I, I, I think you mentioned it Already. Right. I kind of was under the impression before reading some of these articles that like, oh, isn't. Isn't it just that eyewitness testimony is bad? Like, it's never good. Like, we're just really awful observer. And I feel like that's the message. I've heard a lot more over the year. Like, which always feels wrong because I'm like, I don't know. I'm pretty sure I remember the thing that just happened that you're asking me about. Like, it can't be.
- [30:19]
C
Trust my own memory at all.
- [30:20]
B
I'm the only one who's good at remembering things. Like, other people must be good at this.
- [30:25]
A
Yeah.
- [30:25]
B
And knowing this, all these extra steps that go into actually using eyewitness testimony that could lead to that kind of conclusion of, oh, people aren't good at remembering is actually people can be shaped into answering inaccurately.
- [30:42]
A
Yeah, exactly. Especially when you've got like years or many months between the event and when it finally happens. And the other thing that's super interesting about this to me, other than the individual differences underlying behavioral mechanisms, is there is actually a ton of different variables that you can study with single case design and you can exert a really strong degree of control over, for example, the stimuli that people are exposed to before you ask them the questions. You can look at. We just started something in my lab where we're kind of playing around with these photo lineups. So in like eyewitness identification, sometimes they'll do. You know, you've seen in the TV show where they've got like these guys all lined up and they have them like, say something that the perpetrator said or something, and the person picks them out of the lineup. I think those have. I'm not sure they've been entirely phased out, but it's a lot easier to do a photo lineup, which is basically you have like a two by three array of six pictures and you say, like, is the, you know, is the guy one of these guys? They might not be. The person who they suspect might not be on the card at all. And so you have to pick that. But if you think about like, you know, okay, when they saw the person that they're trying to identify, like, how long did they get to look at them? What angle did they see them from? You know, was it bright out? Was it dark out? Did they have a hat, whatever, like, all this different stuff. And then, you know, the, the other, the other variable there is like the, the other pictures that are put in. So if you go and look at, like, the guidelines for creating a photo lineup. They're not just picking, you know, five other pictures at random. They're trying to pick pictures of people who kind of look like the guy. So if you've got like a white guy, a bald white guy with a beard who's six feet tall, they're going to try to find bald white guys with beards who are 6ft tall to put in the, in the lineup. But, like, that's not super systematic. It's like that bald white guy, throw him in there. And so, you know, we're, you know, we've kind of started looking at different, you know, variables with the, with the different pictures and like, does, you know if you are, if you share like, a race or ethnicity with the person who you're trying to identify, will you be more or less likely to identify them if you have the same gender identity or if you are like, of a similar age or whatever? So we're just kind of playing around with that stuff too. But there's like, so many different variables that you can tinker with, especially if you, if you're in kind of like a laboratory setting and you can manipulate those like on the computer spinning.
- [33:34]
B
Well, I'm, I'm going to be really excited to see, see those results. I mean, when we go back to just the questioning, though, I know you mentioned a number of different types of, Can I question, like, antecedents? So, like the questions themselves that are asked. But I know in some of the studies and then kind of, you know, your original replication and as well as the, the moon and jaws of the recent kind of in press one, you have also the response that is given to, to, you know, hey, that's not the right answer. Are you sure that. Right. So he's either reinforcing or punishing, punishing effect that can come into play.
- [34:10]
A
Oh, sorry, what were you saying?
- [34:11]
B
No, no, you're great.
- [34:13]
A
Okay, well, so that part's also super interesting because I think, like, if you asked 10 people, I think a lot of them would, would say, like, oh, yeah, the leading question is what gets people to, you know, provide for the accurate or inaccurate answer. But idiosyncratically, some people or, you know, maybe children are more likely to respond to the antecedent or like, give an inaccurate answer just from the antecedent. But we've found, at least, especially in the, the, the moon and Jocelyn, one was with adults. And so that was like the first single case paper that I know about that, that departed from doing this with children. And so Our results with that indicate that you really need that consequence. So if you just say like this is what happened, Right. That's not necessarily going to do it. You have to then go, I don't know, are you serious? You didn't see it, you want to try again, then you get the change. And so their response to the initial leading question is not necessarily going to be super inaccurate. But when you like give them a hard time or, or imply that they're wrong or you, you know, otherwise, you know, make them, I don't know, like disagree, disapprove of the answer, then it becomes much more likely that they'll change it some subsequent to that with like a follow up question. So you kind of need like that, you need that three term contingency, establish some stimulus control and you know, maybe if somebody's got a lot of experience with an individual, like for example, if your mother tried to use some leading questions on you, you might not need the consequence because you have a lot of experience interacting with your mom.
- [36:05]
C
You've already gotten that consequence.
- [36:07]
A
Right? Right. Or you know, maybe you have a different relationship with your caregiver and their leading questions aren't going to do anything. In fact, you're more likely to disagree even if they're trying to lead you to the correct answer. And so that has a lot to do with like the kind of idiosyncratic nature of a lot of this stuff. Steer me back on track. What? I think I've strayed a little bit.
- [36:34]
C
Oh well, I was just going to add, I feel like another component here too really could be the, like the presence of the interviewer and how, you know, likely the person may be to be, you know, appealing toward authority or being sort of scared to go against what that person is recommending to them. Right. So I don't that definitely, if you're in a police station too and that's there like you're going to be much more likely to, I think to comply with that person.
- [37:05]
B
Yeah,
- [37:07]
C
you know, master student.
- [37:09]
A
Yeah, totally. And, and like there's also all sorts of like implications an interviewer can make. I know that, you know, I'm not saying this happens all the time, but it's definitely happened where like perhaps a police officer or a detective threatens the person being interviewed. These sorts of things can definitely increase or decrease the likelihood of a person giving a particular answer. And so I think that's super relevant like who the interviewer is, what your previous experience with that person is. You know, you may create all sorts of rules when given information by them. And so like the, The Depke study, for example, they looked at this. They. They had this condition called social induction. And so just like a quick run through in that study, they had these kids go through like a. A mock health exam with. With like a Confederate medical professional. After the exam, they would go spend some time with their caregiver, and then they would get asked some questions about it. If the caregiver said nice things about the medical professional that affected how the kids answered the questions. But if the, if the caregiver said, like, oh, I don't like her, I'm glad you're not in there anymore, or they said stuff like that, then the, the kids answers would. Would be less accurate and things like that. So. So that is definitely influential.
- [38:39]
C
That study felt like IRB palooza to me. I can't believe they got that.
- [38:43]
A
Yeah, I think that. So it's. The IRB part is interesting to it because at least when we've done this stuff with adults, you're not really. And this is also something interesting that we saw in the Moon and Jocelyn paper. You're not deceiving them. Like, you're like, okay, you're here to.
- [39:01]
C
Right.
- [39:01]
B
I don't know.
- [39:02]
A
I don't know what the IRB situation is with the other studies, but we're like, hey, we're doing a study about eyewitness testimony and the types of questions, you know, that are asked and stuff like that. And in the Moon and Jocelyn study, we had participants who were like, I know exactly what you were doing. You were trying to influence me to give you the wrong answer. And then if you look at their data, they. They can. They can verbally report to you what the contingencies were, but they were still changing their answers to match the interviewer's behavior. So, yeah, it's. I don't know. There's a lot to unpack there.
- [39:37]
B
Well, I'd kind of love to talk about sort of the genesis of. Of these studies. Like, how does one design them? Because, you know, reading the Depke and this and the Starling, it sort of felt like, how's. There's two more papers? Because it pretty much looks like if you change the consequences and you ask these leading questions, you get an accurate results.
- [39:56]
C
What if you watch a different cartoon? It's not Scooby Doo.
- [39:58]
B
I mean, you know, Scooby Doo. It's a mystery, like who. It's. It's Old man Weathers. Every time like that, you know, there's no, there's no variability but then, you know, in, in the Chabor Najafi, I still don't have it.
- [40:13]
A
Pretend there's a hyphen between Najafi and Chagaburi, because there is, but it's Jaffi Chagaburi at all.
- [40:20]
B
There you go.
- [40:22]
A
It.
- [40:22]
B
It almost felt like, hey, you remember those other articles that this is an extension of? I don't know what. I don't know. We got totally different results. And the results we got were everyone's results were slightly different to something, you know, I know it's more complicated than that. And then in the Mood and Joslin, you move on to adults, but you're still sort of looking at some of those similar patterns and you're really digging into the data, like all the risk ratios, additional probabilities to even just look at what those differences are. I'd love to sort of hear kind of your, your thought process on developing how you're going to do these studies. How are you going to tease apart what increasingly appears to be. There's not like one hard and fast rule of ask a question like this and you'll always get a good answer. Or vice versa. Right?
- [41:02]
A
Yeah. So I think the, I don't know, the creation of the materials and stuff for the studies was interesting. So when we did the Najafi Chagaburi study, we basically took. So the Sparling paper was a brief report and so we went, you know, off of what was available in there. And it was also a brief report that had come out some time ago. And so the, you know, there wasn't a whole ton of information available about it. But so basically you, you get, you get these Scooby Doo clips and you watch them and you come up with a ton of questions about it. There's, we've gone down a lot of rabbit holes on like, the makeup of the question. What you're asking about is how long was the thing you're asking about on the screen? How salient of a stimulus was it? But I won't, I'll kind of put that aside for now. When we, when we were doing the initial ones, it was just like, okay, we're going to come up, we're going to just come up with some questions and, you know, as long as they're not insanely difficult or impossible to answer, that should work. And so in your, in your baseline condition, they're answering them like, pretty accurately. And then you've got the, the leading part. And so one of the limitations of the Najafi Chaigaburi study Was you had these conditions that were super awkward and weird. So you're in there and you're like, so for like the co witness condition, you're going to ask them. I can't remember if it was like 10 or 15 questions. So every question you're like, my friend said that Scooby ate an ice cream cone. Is that true? And then you're like, my friend said that this is what happened. And then you're like, steven said that this is what happened. Is that true? And like, that's never going to actually be how somebody interrogates or interviews a child about, you know, something that they've experienced. And so I think that aspect of it was awkward to implement. And so, like, in the subsequent studies, we started to do, like, add some questions where you're leading to the correct answer and kind of mix it up a little bit. And so maybe ask a question that starts with co witness information and then ask a suggestive question after that to give it a little bit more of a, I guess, a stronger sense of ecological validity. And I think that makes it, I don't know, less. I think it makes the results a little bit more believable or generalizable or something like that. So anyways, you come up with all these questions, you ask them, and then you kind of apply the consequences. It's very confusing to come up with the questions and then to implement it, because as behavior analysts, we're generally trained to reinforce the desirable response. So if you ask a kid a question and they give you the correct answer, you're going to deliver praise or whatever, but in this one, you're leading them to the incorrect answer. But if they give you the correct answer, you doubt. And then if they give you the correct answer. No, wait, see, I already confused myself. So if they give you the correct answer, you doubt. But if they give you the incorrect answer, then you deliver praise. And so it's a little bit. It gets a little confusing talking about the questions, writing the questions, and then implementing it. So like the person implementing the interview at this point, we're basically like scripting it out where it's like, read this question. If they say this, you say this, and then if they say this, you say that. And so you don't have to, in the moment, try to be like, is that okay? That's right. So then I should. Yeah, you know, you don't have to do all that.
- [45:04]
C
I can't even tell my right from my left. So I would not be.
- [45:08]
D
I would go like this.
- [45:11]
C
She's holding up her thumbs. She's making the L's hold up my thumbs. Left, righty. And then I'd go let mean, you know, true false stuff just gets me every time. So I'm just, I shouldn't run these studies, but I think that's really smart. You lay it out like a behavior plan basically, Right?
- [45:27]
A
Yeah. Or you'll just totally confuse yourself.
- [45:30]
C
Yeah.
- [45:32]
B
So when you just did the most recent study, the Moon and Joslin study, you were, it seemed like you were digging a lot deeper into the Q1. So the response to the first question followed by the Q2, what did they. Then when you asked it again, or you asked it in a different way, or you provided the reinforcing or the punishing response, looking at the accuracy of the Q2 and sort of looking at all of those patterns. And that did seem like, speaking of adding these like flowcharts of if this, then that, but if, then the data collection and then the follow up analysis. I was looking at it a little bit before recording and I was getting confused and I was like, I'm so glad I'm asking.
- [46:09]
A
Right.
- [46:09]
B
To describe all of these processes and not doing so how. Because now you're digging into these very specific patterns in order to see the differences between your participants. And like you mentioned, some folks were, I know what you're doing. And they'd still get the raw, they still show you given an accurate answer. Other folks seemed like maybe they didn't give you as much sort of pushback or like they hadn't figured out the, the study. But I, I kind of love to hear how you used those, those conditional probabilities, those risk ratios and kind of the general findings from that.
- [46:45]
A
Yeah. And so like initially we just kind of had been graphing accuracy response accuracy for like each question set and a video has a question set. And so each session would have just a percentage assigned to it. And that's what we did with the Najafi Chakaburi study. And then Samantha Moon, who is the Moon of Moon and Jocelyn, she started graphing it by initial response accuracy. If you only look at their initial response and then final answer accuracy, that's when it was like, whoa. Because when you look at just the final response, you can see that there's some change with some of the participants. But then when you graph the initial response with it, you see just how many answers they're changing from correct to incorrect. So they're going from like providing a correct answer and then they're, you know, encountering the consequence and Changing their answer. So that part was pretty interesting. And then when you go and you look at like your conditional probabilities, which would just be like the likelihood of an accurate response if it was an adversarial question, the likelihood of a correct response from the initial response and then the final response and stuff like that, you can start to see that, you know, there's, there's systematic differences in their accuracy across these different conditions.
- [48:16]
B
And I remember you mentioned, or it was mentioned in the paper that it wasn't just, oh, punishment changed their ability to answer questions accurately. It wasn't like, well, because you kept
- [48:27]
A
going, I don't think that's it.
- [48:28]
B
Or like, are you really sure that they're suddenly like, you blew their minds and they're just like, I don't know what's true anymore. Like, they kept answering the Q ones much more accurately. Yeah, it was sort of like the combination of everything that would lead to the follow up answer being more often inaccurate.
- [48:46]
A
Yeah. And so if you think about like, why might that happen there? I can think of several answers of why that might happen that would differ across people. So you might have a participant who, you know, you give them the doubt and they're like, I don't want to deal with this today. Whatever. Yes, he had it. Scooby had an ice cream cone. Fine, like, whatever. You might then have a participant who gives the correct answer and you're like, really? Are you sure about that? And then they are like, what you were saying. They're like, oh, wait a second, I don't know, I'm not so sure. They seem pretty confident. Okay, sure. Yeah. Scooby had an ice cream cone. And then, you know, you've got, you know, variations off of those, those two things. It's probably some combination of the two. Maybe they're, you know, they get confused or whatever. And so you have all of these different, you know, stimuli coming in. Basically you've got the video, but that was a couple minutes ago. This person's asking you questions and they're, they're looking at you like, like you're crazy and they are disagreeing with you and that sort of thing. And so I think if you have all these different people who are being interviewed forensically, it's, you're not. Even if you implement the same strategy with all of them, you're going to have different, your interview questions are going to have different effects on the likelihood that they'll give you an accurate response. So like, going back to what you're asking about, like with the why? What does behavior analysis have to offer? These individual differences have huge implications for, like, what happens when you use a particular interview strategy with a particular person. If their history works really well with your interview strategy, you'll get really good answers. But if you use the same strategy with this person, it's not going to produce the same outcome. And so there's, There are probably ways where you can, you know, do assessments and collect some data and kind of figure out what's going on. You can analyze the data by asking them some questions and looking at the, you know, the probability of a correct answer given this type of question, and so on and so forth. And so that's, that's kind of where like those, the risk ratio, conditional probability stuff was really interesting because, like, we didn't initially plan to do that, the quantitative stuff, but the reviewers recommended it and when they did, you know, this was like one of those times where I'm like, that's a really good idea. I can't believe we didn't think about doing that. And so we did, and we got, you know, we got some pretty cool, you know, analysis where it's. If you go and look at the risk ratios, it's like Q1. So initial question and neutral questions are very, very close for, like, all of them. So your, your likelihood of giving a correct answer is very similar for like, was Scooby eating an ice cream cone? And Scooby was eating an ice cream cone. Right. Or like my friend said, Scooby was eating an ice cream cone. They're very similar. But then once you apply the consequence and ask again, they know what answer you want to. You want them to give whether, you know, whatever the function of providing that answer is for that individual, you know, that's a question for another day, but that's kind of the, the sequence of events. And so that was, I think that was kind of the most. One of the most interesting things that that came out of that study was like, you really need the whole package to see those, those effects.
- [52:25]
C
Do you think that, do you think
- [52:27]
D
that people outside of our field would find that interesting and use it?
- [52:33]
A
I think.
- [52:34]
C
Right.
- [52:34]
A
Like, yeah, go ahead.
- [52:37]
C
No, that's it.
- [52:39]
A
Yeah, I think potentially so I think we've got, you know, we've got a translation problem with single case design and trying to kind of convince people that the outcomes from that are socially significant or meaningful. But then, you know, in addition to that, you've also got to get other people to look at it in the first place. So I think once we kind of get some momentum and we have some, you know, some, a greater single case literature base for this stuff. I think that showing, you know, idiosyncratic differences, like showing functional relations with individual people and different question types on their accuracy, if we can effectively communicate that to other fields that are doing similar things, I think that would definitely be of interest to them. And so the next step would be to try to publish some of this stuff in some of these interdisciplinary forensic type journals that are out there. And they are out there and they don't publish a lot of single case data, but it doesn't say that they don't. So we're going to, we're going to go for it eventually
- [53:55]
B
that, that it feels like maybe a good time to move into the next section of our show, the dissemination station. Oh, are we here? Are you sure? My friend said we are, so we're here. Ray, I, I love kind of hearing about this additional area the behavior analysis could be more involved in, especially because it's related to such an important area of kind of societal need, which would be police work, the criminal justice systems. Is there any thought to how we ask questions being something that like an average clinician might want to be thinking about too, in terms of our goal being to get accurate responses from parents, from caregivers, from teachers, from students. Like, should, should we be rethinking how we, you know, do our own interview styles? Is this something that might lend itself to, hey, if you've been answering questions or, you know, responding to questions the following way, you may be getting crummier results. Or am I sort of just over worrying about that?
- [54:59]
A
No, I, I mean, I'm going beyond the data here, but in my own, like, personal life, I have caught myself like in a conversation kind of thinking more about how I'm going to word the question and stuff like that. Because I think there's a lot of variables that go into it, like the significance of what answer you give. Does it matter or not? If you say yes, it could send someone to prison. Or if you say yes, it's not going to matter because it's small talk. And there will be utterly no consequence whatsoever if you say yes or no here. But if you kind of think about participating in a conversation and someone's like, oh, blah, blah, blah, blah, right? And then you're like, yeah, huh. But it's like so much more effortful and awkward to be like, actually, no, I disagree with that and here's why. And so, I mean, it might be effortful. It Might be awkward. It might cause some, like, interpersonal whatever. At the very least, it can interrupt the flow of the conversation. So you have all of these, like, other variables. There's. And so if you think about, like, the ubiquity of the use of these types of questions, like, I, once I started thinking about it, I hear and ask leading questions all the time. And so, you know, because you're just, you know, if you're just trying to confirm information, you were like, this is. You did this. Right? Okay, cool. But if you say, like, did you do this? You know, I think there's. I don't know how many different answers you would get if you asked that question 100 times, but I bet some of them would be different. So I've kind of been thinking about it, and one of the other things that I was thinking about to you, one of the other DOC students in my lab, Riley Rosta, has. She's interested in working with kids with autism and stuff like that. And so she started doing this stuff with kids with autism. And we were looking into this. And, you know, kids in general are at, like, a high risk for being, you know, abused and neglected and stuff like that. But if a kid has an intellectual disability or autism or something like that, it's like three times higher or something like that. And so if you think about, like, if, if something happens to a kid, who is the first person who's going to ask them what happened? It's not going to be some, like, highly trained specialists in forensic interviews with children. It's going to be like their caregiver or their babysitter or, you know, something like that. And so that initial interaction, like, if you look at the depth key stuff. Yeah, if, if, if something happens to a kid, what, you know, how the adult who initially questions them about that event behaves is going to affect how they then talk about the event and subsequent interactions. And so I think it's, I don't know, it's all over the place and it's happening all the time. But it's not something that a lot of people think about in the context of the courtroom or a detective interviewing somebody that's kind of under heavy scrutiny and it's recorded and you can pull the transcripts and stuff like that. And so that's a little bit more detectable or observable. But parents and teachers and all sorts of, of different folks are asking questions all day long and with lots of different people and different kids, and they have different histories with all these different individuals and the Fact that we, like, really have no idea what all of the controlling variables are or how to identify what they might be for an individual person. It's just kind of. I don't know, it's like the wild west with that sort of thing. And so we don't really know what the impact of having your parent ask you these questions this way or that way after you tell them something happened. And so I think looking at that sort of thing is definitely important, too. And then that actually leads me into one of my other students. We were brainstorming research ideas, and her name is Sierra Rodriguez. She wants to look at caregiver coaching. Kind of like, so you're about to be interviewed or whatever, and, you know, maybe your parent or caregiver is like, it's gonna be okay. I'll be right outside. Or, like, I'll be sitting next to you the whole time. Everything's gonna be fine. Or they might be like, okay, they're gonna ask you a bunch of questions, and they might try to trick you. So, you know, pay really close attention. It's really important that you give all the right answers. And, like, the. You know, the instructions that you receive before you go in are going to affect your behavior. And we've done some. We've got a couple of studies going on right now where basically you have a kid come in, you demonstrate well, you kind of do a little assessment, and you say, like, oh, they're definitely sensitive to interviewer behavior. Their accuracy goes from, like, 90 to zero when you ask these questions with these consequences. And then you have their parent come in and say, okay, the interviewer is about to come back. It's really important that you give the right answer, even if they disagree with you or they deliver an instruction like that. And it was like, the first time we did this, I was like, oh, this is totally gonna. You know, they're totally not gonna give inaccurate answers after their. It was like the participant's mom or something. And I was like, oh, it's just gonna be, you know, just like baseline. But their parent came in and said this to them, and they were still just as inaccurate as they were in the previous condition. And then we had, like, one of the other graduate students deliver the instruction. Nothing. But then the person delivering the interview gave the same instruction. And then accuracy went, like, through the roof. So it was. It was like, it could have been that they received the instruction three times from three different people. It seemed like the rapport that they had with the interviewer maybe influenced the. You know, because These are, like, cool grad students, and they're interviewing, like, kids. And so the kids probably look up to them and think they're cool. And so when they say that, they might be more likely to listen, it could be something completely different. But we've seen this. We've seen this kind of effect a few times now. And so I'm starting to think that there's, you know, something to it. So.
- [61:30]
C
Wow, that's interesting. Another location that I think that this could be relevant as well is in emergency rooms, too.
- [61:42]
A
Oh, yeah.
- [61:44]
C
Because we have three boys, so we've been to the ER a good number of times. And there was one said, kid's fine, but he fell in the basement and hit his head and had a concussion. And so we took him in, and the doctor's like, what happened? And I'm starting to respond. And he was like, no, mom, shut up. I need to hear from him. Right, right. And so it's like, the parent could be influencing what actually happened in that scenario, because they're trying to figure out. Right. Did the parent do something? I didn't. It was an accident.
- [62:18]
B
Are you sure?
- [62:19]
A
Or, like, you might. You might have assumed what happened and been like, oh, he must have fallen. He must have skipped the last step and fallen. But, like, something else happened. Or like. Or like, what if the kid comes into the emergency room and the doctor's like, you didn't need any weird mushrooms, did you? And they're like, oh, I guess I'm gonna be in trouble if I ate a weird mushroom. Definitely didn't eat a weird mushroom. Because the way the question is worded, like, implies that you shouldn't have done that. So they're. It makes it less likely that they're gonna fess up to it. So I think there's a lot to that.
- [62:54]
C
Yeah.
- [62:54]
A
And if they say they didn't eat a mushroom, it's gonna take them that much longer to figure out what's going on. So.
- [63:00]
C
Yeah, so I see. Like, that is another area, because to me, like, the next step in this line of research would be is also thinking, like, well, what are the. The pitfalls of presenting leading questions if people are not trained to know not to do that? And how can we, you know, disseminate that information so that folks don't accidentally lead.
- [63:22]
A
Yeah.
- [63:23]
C
Lead kids. Right. And I feel like the er, I mean, I think they are trained there, but it's possible you could get someone who wasn't.
- [63:29]
B
Well, so are the police and.
- [63:31]
A
Yeah, yeah, yeah. I mean, like, there are guidelines out there for how to do these forensic interviews. And it's like, don't, it's like ask open ended questions, don't lead them and don't bias them. But you know, a lot of the strategies like for the, the re technique like we were talking about earlier, not only does, is it not supported by the literature, it contradicts or, or does like flatly against what the best practice recommendations are. And so like, I do think that strategies like that are kind of on their way out. I know like in a lot of, I think like in Europe there's a lot of, it's very popular like alternate questioning strategies and stuff like that. And there are people who are trained specifically in doing forensic interviews with children, like social workers. And like, you know, there are places like what's, I can't think of what it's called right now. Centers for, you know, for, for children who have been, you know, victimized or something like that. They might have a bunch of social workers there who have been explicitly trained in how to do this. But are you going to get someone like that to do your interview? Maybe they might be the seventh person to interview you though. And you know, we don't know how the previous six interviews are going to influence your responding in there. If everyone is making this kid think they can't say what happened by the time they get to this person, they, you know, they're not gonna, they're not probably gonna respond like they would if they were the first person that interviewed them.
- [65:09]
C
Yeah, right.
- [65:11]
B
Well, I mean Ray, it, I, I, it's so exciting to see a line of research in which there are so many variables that could be studied. Seems like an infinite amount of research could be done just on the forensic interviewing technique, especially with a great goal of how to include more and more of this information into what is known about the questioning techniques, which could help lawyers in terms of making sure that their questions aren't going to be objected to. Help police, help social workers. Dr. I mean the utility is almost endless too, which is, it's just so exciting that there's so many things to still, still look at and still explore. Although so far we've covered all the behavior analytic literature there is on the subject for now. So we can't wait for the next part.
- [65:58]
A
Well, you know, I will, I will say that these are the, the only studies that I'm aware of in behavior analysis that have explicitly looked at this like analog forensic interview arrangement. But you, you know, there's definitely a lot of information that, that can kind of pour over into this from, like, the, you know, the verbal behavior literature. There are people who, like, kind of look up the, you know, the functional control of, like, lying and stuff like that. So that stuff is out there. Like, for example, the kind of framework with. With the photo lineup stuff that I'm talking about, the kind of framework that we're using to. To design the procedures and stuff is it's like a delayed match to sample procedure. So they see a picture and then they match it later after. You know, there might be a distractor, there might be a certain amount of delay. But, like, a lot of this stuff has kind of been touched on by other, you know, researchers who had, like, maybe a different research question, but the information kind of ports over. But once you start, like, trying to lead them to say the wrong answer, that's where I think it. It kind of departs from a lot of the standard stuff and gets super interesting because the kids all respond differently to it, and I don't know why they're doing this so
- [67:22]
B
well. Dr. Ray Joslin, thank you so much for being on the show today. If folks want to reach out to you, either because they have forensic interviewing questions or research ideas, or if, like me, they're going to go off and try to get that SVU spec script out an agent's hand and they might need a consultant to help with the question part of it. Is there a way that they could get in touch with you?
- [67:42]
A
Yeah, We've got our PhD program too, at West Virginia University, and we take graduate students. Yeah. So my email, I think, would probably be the best way to reach me. It's Raid. Jocelynail wvu Edu. Yeah, shoot me an email. This stuff is super interesting, and I, you know, I love to talk about it and, you know, all the different things you can do with it.
- [68:07]
B
So one more time, we want to say Huge thanks to Dr. Ray Joslin for coming on with this fabulous topic. But the show's not quite over. We've got our last segment, Pairings.
- [68:18]
C
Time for pairings. Pairings is the part of the show where I tell you about past episodes. You might want to check out if you thought this one was interesting. We've never talked about forensic interviewing before, so I don't have any past episodes.
- [68:31]
B
Sure.
- [68:32]
C
Yeah.
- [68:33]
B
My friend said there is an episode about that.
- [68:35]
C
Oh, my God, you're right. There is one. No, there's not. But there are a few that I think are relevant. So we've talked about lying behavior two different times. Episode 112 is titled lying behavior and then episode 293 is titled how to stop lying. That was with Dr. Corey Stocko. And then we talked about memory as well. That's episode 187 with Dr. Dave Palmer, who was way smarter than any of us will ever be. I am my friend.
- [69:05]
B
You're said you're really smart.
- [69:07]
C
Okay. And then two different times we have talked about the police generally in some varying contexts. And so I thought I'd just throw those in here in case you are interested in that as a topic. There's episode 114, which is Police Academy 8, Police Training and Behavior Analysis. And episode 174, Police Brutality and Client Mistreatment. And that was a Dr. C.O. cody Morris. In the context of pairings, I also like to recommend a snack. Rob, the snack is especially for you.
- [69:40]
B
Oh, hooray.
- [69:41]
C
Because it is the lickable wallpaper that I don't like this had at Edith Wharton's house.
- [69:50]
B
This is a lie. I have been gaslit, folks. Save me. When the social worker comes to ask me why I need to be taken out of my home, it's because my family has been gaslighting me about going to a boring place that I really want to go to. It's Edith Wharton's house, the Mount. Remember Edith Wharton Lennox, early 20th century author Edith Wharton.
- [70:15]
C
So we said, why don't we pretend like we went there and then Rob slash dad will forget that he hasn't been there. And so the whole family. It's like a running joke about the time we went to Edith Wharton's house and how fun it was trying to like, plant this false memory, basically. And then I said, and we had had lickable wallpaper, just like Willy Wonka. He's not buying Edith Wharton would.
- [70:37]
D
That's where you went wrong. That Edith Wharton would never have lickable wallpaper. You've obviously not read any.
- [70:42]
B
It's getting worse. Getting worse and worse all the time. And as Ray said, we do remember. We are good eyewitnesses. I, you know, and. And I know what you're trying to do.
- [70:53]
C
You lick the wallpaper, remember?
- [70:55]
B
No. My friend said that you are a
- [70:57]
C
big old liar and that was pairings. Please enjoy.
- [71:01]
B
All right. Thanks for nothing, Diana. But thank you, Jackie. And thank you, Dr. Rich Oslin. And thank you, the listener, for listening to ABA Inside Track. We really appreciate it if you have not. We'd love it if you subscribe to our show, wherever you like to get your podcasts. Maybe even leave us a review or something to get the word out, whether it's A verbal review to your friends, or whether it's something on one of the various platforms where you can leave a review. We'd really appreciate that. If you're interested in ces, don't forget you're going to need to go to our website, abainsidetrack.com again. You can find links to all the articles that we discussed here, as well as a place to purchase CES for all of our previous episodes and this episode. And speaking of ces, for this episode, you probably want the second secret code word. It's Clarice. C, L, A, R, I, C, E. Yep.
- [71:54]
C
I'm not doing a Clarice.
- [71:55]
B
I know. I was trying to think.
- [71:56]
C
I know how to do that.
- [71:57]
B
Oh, Dr. Lecter.
- [72:01]
A
Hello, Clarice.
- [72:02]
C
There you go.
- [72:03]
B
It's good to see you again, Jackie. Have you seen that movie?
- [72:06]
C
No.
- [72:07]
B
Really?
- [72:08]
C
No.
- [72:09]
B
Oh, did you see Beauty and the Beast?
- [72:12]
A
Yes. Okay.
- [72:13]
B
They were both nominated for Best Picture that year.
- [72:16]
C
Did Beauty and the Beast win?
- [72:18]
B
No, I'm afraid not. I was so upset about that as an 11 year old child who watched the Oscars, but. Silence the lamps. Pretty good movie, Clarice.
- [72:29]
C
Okay.
- [72:30]
B
All right. Well, folks, that brings us to the end of the show. If you liked ABA Inside Track, maybe you'd like to become a patron at patreon.com/aba InsideTrack, where you can subscribe at a free level. And that'll give you access to all of our polls, our annual book club poll, which at the time of this recording is coming out very soon. So if you want to pick what books we'll be doing in 2026 and 2027, you want to join at at least the free level. But if you'd like some extra bonuses, like discounts at our CE store episodes coming out a week ahead of time, and free CES for our listener choice episodes and at our for our book club episodes when they're released, you can subscribe at the $5 and up level. That'll get you all the listener choice CES for free, or the $10 and up level, which will get you access to our book clubs the moment they're released, as well as two free CES for each of those. And all the extra stuff, too. The more, the higher you go, you get more stuff is basically what it comes down to. But again, even at the free tier, you'll get access to those polls, which is worth its weight in gold. So maybe not as much as CE discounts. That's patreon.com SL ABA inside track and some final thanks in addition to another thanks to Dr. Ray Joslin, big thanks to Dr. Jim Carr for recording our intro and outro music, Kyle Sturry for interstitial music, and Dan Thabit of the podcast Doctors for his amazing editing work. We'll be back next week with another fun filled episode, but until then, keep responding. Bye Bye.
- [74:00]
A
Sam.