In 2016, End Violence Against Women, Inc. (EVAWI) published a report titled, “Understanding the Neurobiology of Trauma and Implications for Interviewing Victims.”[1] Noting several scientific flaws, Dr. Sujeeta Bhatt and I published a detailed critique of the EVAWI report last September.[2]
In response, EVAWI made numerous revisions to their report, published under a new title, “Becoming Trauma-Informed: Learning and Appropriately Applying the Neurobiology of Trauma to Victim Interviews.”[3] The present commentary reviews EVAWI’s latest version.
My expertise lies in the domain of science-based investigative interviewing, not in the neurobiology of trauma. Co-authoring a response to the EVAWI 2016 paper sensitized me to some of the challenges faced by those responsible for investigating and adjudicating instances of sexual discrimination under Title IX (as a civil offense) as well as those responsible for investigating charges of sexual violence (as a criminal offense). Rape kits languish in police stations and those who assert that they have been sexually assaulted often are not believed and/or their complaints not investigated.
Responding to our criticisms, EVAWI’s revised report recognizes that not all victims of sexual assault display the symptoms described. For example, EVAWI now acknowledges, “the same event might be experienced as traumatic to one person but not another” (p. 15). Trauma-informed interview training should also provide an understanding of the neurobiology of resilience (a topic not addressed in the new EVAWI report), since not all those who are sexually assaulted are traumatized. Doing so may help an interviewer approach an alleged victim with fewer assumptions, which is critical to any investigation. Equally important, the authors point out that it is not “the investigator’s role to determine whether someone has experienced trauma” (p. 18).
The EVAWI report asserts that “traditional strategies don’t work with trauma victims” (p. 6). EVAWI appears to be referring to the often-accusatorial approaches used by American police investigators (e.g., the ‘Reid method’) or the question-and-answer tactics used by attorneys. These persons tend to assume that memories are best recalled in response to closed-ended questions, and that apparent resistance to answering questions indicates deception or a lack of cooperation.
What science has shown for the past several decades is that empowering an interview subject to tell their story with as few interruptions as possible is more likely to elicit reliable information, whether the subject be a victim, witness, source, or suspect. One method of such elicitation is the Cognitive Interview, developed by Ron Fisher and Edward Geiselman in the 1980s. The efficacy of the Cognitive Interview approach has been demonstrated in both laboratory and field conditions — see reviews by Memon, Meissner, and Fraser[4] and Dodier and Otgaar[5]. Although the revised EVAWI report does not explicitly reference the Cognitive Interview method, its description of a good interview approach (p. 7) closely tracks with that methodology.
As appears happens in both science and policy, we swing from one side of an issue to the other. Because some victims of sexual assault have been neglected by the criminal justice system, victim advocates often assert that alleged victims should be assumed to be telling the truth (“start by believing”) and not be challenged in their account. In my view, the latter risks a bias against the alleged perpetrator. All bias is problematic, and an investigator is most likely to uncover the truth when the investigator treats both alleged victim and alleged attacker with respect and empathy.
Science resides in neutral ground. My experience with proponents of trauma-informed interviewing leads me to believe that we will find the best science via engagement with each other – certainly, there are opportunities to address grievances on many fronts. Change happens when people on all sides of an issue work together.
Citations:
[1] https://www.evawintl.org/Library/Detail.aspx?ItemID=842
[2] http://www.prosecutorintegrity.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Review-of-Neurobiology-of-Trauma-9.1.2019.docx
[3] https://www.evawintl.org/library/DocumentLibraryHandler.ashx?id=1364
[4] Memon, Meissner, and Fraser [2010], “The cognitive interview: A meta-analytic review and study space analysis of the past 25 years.”
[5] Dodier and Otgaar [2019], “The forensic and clinical relevance of evidence-based investigative interview methods in historical sexual abuse cases”.