primal experiment, by which he is said to have detected an actual thief, he found a so-called "betrayal" in the reaction "stranger-look," by interpreting it thus: "The young thief thought that some one had looked when he was stealing, and had informed on him, so that I, a stranger, now knew of it." Such interpretations will to many seem merely amusing; I will not call them "wild feats of jugglery," as one of the German lawyers does. Nor will I press analogous defects the danger of trusting to the whims of all sorts of magistrates in using this method - the probability that a clever rascal could counterfeit a normal reaction-time the lack of clear indication of different occupations, etc., as found by observed reaction-times — the fallacy of the assumption that a guilty person knows all the details of his crime, and the corresponding fallacy of fixing beforehand as criteria of guilt the reaction-words which the magistrate supposes to belong to the crimethe error of method in assuming, in our present state of knowledge, that there are any uniform associations with certain so-called "key-words" which are valid for every individual's experience. . (3) Are its conditions practical? I will not here dwell on the impractical length of time required for adequate tests; nor on the relative cumbrousness of the method to other ordinary ones which would at least secure as much result; nor on the circumstance that it could (in this country) only be done either by trained psychologists, who would doubtless differ in their interpretations and thus introduce a new mass of disputed expert testimony, or by the police, who presumably would be too subject to bias to give great weight to their interpretation. I will simply point out that all the investigators do not frankly state that the willingness of the accused to submit to the test is assumed. So that, obviously, the accused cannot be put to it unless he waives his constitutional privilege against self-incrimination. And if he refuses, claiming his privilege, no inference can be drawn as to his guilt, under our law; for we cannot say, as a German or Austrian magistrate might say, "If he refuses, he would presumably find himself deemed guilty." And since the most experienced men at our bar accept it as a solid maxim, "If the client is guilty, never let him enter the witness-box," no guilty man would in an important case probably ever consent after the method became generally known. After all, then, since with us the method is not practicable at all unless the accused consents, it is hardly worth while to offer it to our bar as something that would play an important part in ordinary criminal practice. THE OF SPECIFIC TITLE III : THE INTERPRETATION SUBTITLE A: EXTENT OF LATENT ERROR IN THE NORMAL TESTIMONIAL PROCESS 290. GUY M. WHIPPLE. Manual of Mental and Physical Tests. (1910. p. 286.)1 Tests of Description and Report. The two tests which are described in this chapter have certain features in common which demarcate them on the one hand from the tests of perception and attention of the previous chapter, and on the other hand from the memory tests of the succeeding chapter, though, in many other respects, they resemble these tests. The essential idea in both of the present tests is to determine capacity, not merely to attend and observe, or to recall what has been observed, but to put the results of this observation into linguistic form. (If the observer gives his account of the experience at the time of his observation, this constitutes "description"; if at some time subsequent to his observation, this constitutes "report.") It is evident that this giving of an account of an experience, particularly if the experience be somewhat complicated in form, is a more complex psychical process than those under discussion in the tests of attention and perception. This greater complexity makes the reduction of the observer's performance to exact quantitative terms a matter of greater difficulty, but, on the other hand, the activity called forth is more akin to that demanded in everyday life, and it is for this reason that these tests have been felt to possess a peculiar value, particularly in the study of individual differences in mental constitution and mental efficiency. Again, language occupies so strikingly prominent a place in our mental economy that tests which seek to bring out the observer's ability to cast experience into linguistic form are, on that account, well worth while. This is particularly the case in the second form of test, that of the report, which, in connection with the 'psychology of testimony," has of late had a prominent place in psychological research. Test 32. Fidelity of Report ("Aussage" test). Capacity to observe, or range of observation, may be tested by methods previously described (Tests 25 and 31); native retentiveness or capacity for recall may be tested by methods such as those that are described in subsequent sections; capacity to describe what is seen may be tested as has been indicated in Test 31. But there exists also a type of activity, that of reporting a pre 1 Published at Baltimore, by the Warwick & Yorke Co. vious experience, which in a way combines these several activities, in that it demands both attentive observation, retention, recall, and an ability to marshal and formulate the items of experience in a verbal report (“Aussage"). In studying the "psychology of testimony," interest has been developed of late in the direct examination by experimental methods of the capacity to report, itself, and it has been found that reports may exhibit varying degrees of fidelity or reliability, more or less independently of the capacity that the reporters possess to observe or to retain experience. In other words, discrepancies or inadequacies may appear in reports, which are due, not only to misdirected attention, malobservation and errors of memory, but also to lack of caution or of zeal for accurate statement, to scanty vocabulary, to injudicious phraseology, or, of course, to deliberate intent to mislead. Method. 1. Choice of material. Of the several types of material that have been elaborated for the study of the report, e.g., the picture test, the event test, the rumor test, etc., the first mentioned has many advantages for our present purposes. 2. Choice of exposure time. For pictures, times ranging from 5 sec. to 7 min. have been used, though 45-60 sec. is most usual. The principle which has controlled the choice of exposure time for the two tests that follow is to select such a period as will permit an average S1 to examine each detail of the object once. 3. Choice of time interval. For the sake of brevity, the instructions that follow prescribe a report directly after the exposure. If circumstances permit, E1 will find it of interest to extend the interval to several minutes, or even hours or weeks. The effect of a lengthening time interval has not as yet been satisfactorily determined. 4. Choice of form of report. There are two distinct forms of report. (1) The "narrative ("Bericht," "récit”), (2) the "interrogatory" ("Verhör" of Stern, "Prüfung " of Wreschner, “interrogatoire" of Borst, "forage de mémoire" or "questionnaire" of Binet). The narrative is a free account, delivered by S, either orally or in writing, without comment, question, or suggestion by E. The interrogatory is a series of prearranged questions; the replies to these questions constitute the deposition ("Verhörsprodukt"). The constituent parts of the narrative or the deposition may be termed "statements" or "items." Each form of report has its advantages; both should be employed whenever possible. 5. Choice of form of interrogatory. An interrogatory is "complete" when its questions cover all features of the experience exhaustively, and are propounded to all S's in the same order and manner: an interrogatory is "incomplete" when its questions are restricted to such as refer only to those items not mentioned by S in his narrative. ... 6. Choice of questions. The form of questioning very materially affects S's deposition, particularly if the questions are of the type known as "leading" or "suggestive" questions. If we follow Stern, at least six types of questions may be framed, viz.: determinative, completely disjunctive, incompletely disjunctive, expectative, and consecutive. A completely disjunctive question is one that forces the reporter to choose between two specified alternatives, e.g. "Is there a dog in the Picture?" An incompletely disjunctive question is one that offers the reporter a choice between two alter 1 [S=the person who is the subject of the experiment; E=the person managing the experiment. ED.] natives, but does not entirely preclude a third possibility,, e.g. "Is the dog white or black?"... An expectative question is one that arouses a moderately strong suggestion of the answer, e.g. "Was there not a dog in the picture?” (This is the form used by Binet to induce moderate suggestion.) An implicative question is one that assumes or at least implies the presence of a feature that was not really present in the experience, e.g. "What color is the cat?"... The consecutive question is any form of question that is used to augment a suggestion that has been developed by previous questions. 7. Choice of method of grading. Treatment of data. In general, the adequacy of a report depends both upon its quantity and its quality: quantity is measured by the number of items mentioned or the number of questions answered (in absolute or in relative terms) and is referred to as the range of report ("Umfang," "étendue"): quality is measured by the fidelity of the statements made, and is referred to as the accuracy of report ("Treue," "fidelité"). We have also at our command useful indications of the positiveness or degree of assurance that S places in his report. Besides (1) complete uncertainty ("I don't know" or "I have forgotten"), we may distinguish (2) hesitancy ("I think” or “I believe"), (3) positive statement or assurance of ordinary degree, and (4) attestation or attestable assurance, i.e. the highest degree of assurance, as indicated by S's willingness to take his oath that the statement is correct. . . . A. Report Test with a Card of Objects. Method. Give S the following instructions: "I want to try an experiment with you to see how good your memory is. I am going to show you a large card with a number of things fastened on it. You will have just half a minute to look at it. Half a minute is a pretty short time, so you must look very carefully, because afterwards I shall want you to tell me what you have seen, and I shall ask you questions about many little details, and I want you to answer these questions exactly, if you can. Do you understand?" Place the card directly before S in a good light. At the end of 30 sec., remove it and keep it well concealed. Direct S at once: "Now tell me everything you saw : describe it so clearly that if I had never seen the card I should know all about what was on it." The narrative is given orally by S, and recorded verbatim by E, without comment, query, or suggestion. Reread the report to S, and ask him to indicate what statements he is so sure of that he would swear to their accuracy. Underline these statements. Proceed next with the interrogatory. If possible, ask S the following questions in the order given. Record his replies by number, verbatim, and underline all attested replies. B. Report Test with a Colored Picture. Materials. Set of four colored pictures: "Australians," "A Disputed Case," "Washington and Sally," and "The Orphan's Prayer." Watch. . . . Suggestions for interrogatories for two of the pictures follow. Interrogatory for "A Disputed Case."1 (1) How wide is the picture (horizontally)? (2) How high is the picture (vertically)? (3) Is there any border if so, what color? (4) How many persons are there in the [This picture is recommended to be used by law school instructors in collating results of uniform experiments on this subject. It can be obtained from the Taber-Prang Art Co., Springfield, Mass., at 50¢ per copy, post paid; the order number is 1235, color print, 14" x 16". - ED.] picture? Take the person on your right: (5) Is he young, middle-aged, or old? (6) What is his posture, sitting, standing, or lying down? (7) What is he doing? (8) What is his facial expression? (9) Is he bald or has he abundant hair? (10) What color is his hair? (11) Is he smooth-faced or has he a mustache or a beard? (12) What color is his beard? (13) Does his mustache conceal his mouth? (14) Does he wear eyeglasses or spectacles? (15) Has he a hat on? What kind? What color? (16) Where is his right hand? (17) Where is his left hand? (18) What color is his coat? (19) What color is his shirt? (20) Has he a collar on? (21) What color is his necktie? (22) What color is his vest? (23) What color are his trousers? (24) Does he wear slippers or shoes or boots? Take the person on your left: (25-44) Repeat questions 5-24. (45) What kind of light or lamp is used? (46) Where is it placed? (47) Where is the inkwell? (48) Is there not a pen in it? (49) What color is the dog? (50) Is there a table or a bench? (51) How long is it really? (52) What color is the tablecloth or covering? (53) Is the fringe of the same or a different color? (54) Name the objects on the table. (55) How many chairs are there in the room? (56) Is the rockingchair on your left or your right? (57) Is there an umbrella? (58) Do you think it is jet-black or dark blue? (59) In what position is it? (60) Name the objects in front of the table on the floor. (61) Is there a satchel or dress-suit case in the room? Which? (62) Is it open or shut? (63) What do the pictures on the wall represent? (64) How many windows are visible? (65) Can you see any detail of outdoor scenery through them? (66) How many hats are there in the room? (67) Describe and locate them. (68) Can you recall the time indicated by the clock on the wall? (69) What object is on your extreme right? (70) Are there any books in this part of the room? (71) What color is the wall? (72) Where is the newspaper? (73) How long did you see the picture? . . . Typical Results. The following narrative by a college senior, a man of varied experience, mature, much traveled, and well trained, though of mediocre native ability, shows clearly the tendency of an adult S to describe a situation, a meaningful whole, rather than merely to enumerate details, as do many children. Indeed the detail here is distinctly subordinated to the interpretative rendering. The narrative tells what the picture is about rather than what it is. "The picture, about 10X10 inches, represents a scene that would be typical of a rural justice of the peace and a man who has come to ask his advice on some subject. The justice sits before his desk, an old manuscript before him, one hand on his head as if he had not yet given his decision. The office is filled with books and on one of them in the left of the picture rests his top hat. The visitor seems to be troubled very much. His clothing denotes that he is of a different station in life. He has placed his carpetbag on the floor and his hat near it, as a sign of great mental strain, which seems to increase as he awaits the decision. On the wall to the right is a double map of the world, showing, perhaps, that the justice is a man of wisdom and a source of information to his neighbors. The room, furniture, the manner of dress would have denoted a time long before ours. The men seem to be about 65 or 70 years of age." In his deposition, this student rendered an unusually full list of answers: the reply "I don't know" is given only twice (Questions 34 and 72). |