Page 325 - Deception at work all chapters EBook

378 An HR Guide to Workplace Fraud and Criminal Behaviour

WHAT IS CI? of the original encoding context increases
recall. Secondly, the multiple trace theory
The ‘cognitive’ components of CI draw suggests that there are many ways in which
upon two theoretical principles. First, that memory can be cued and that if one cue
a memory retrieval cue is effective to the fails, another may succeed.
extent that there is an overlap between it
and the information encoded in memory
(see page 52 [xref]), and that reinstatement

For our own purposes we can define CI as: ‘A structured, holistic process, based on an
understanding of the brain’s operation, in which a person’s memory is stimulated by a com-
bination of retrieval cues.’

There is no question that CI assists recall:

• for eye witnesses who can be compelled to assist;24
• who are not themselves under threat or maliciously motivated;
• in simple, single event cases.

Improvements in memory recall of between 35 and 46 per cent have been claimed,25 and
some academics suggest that CI is almost as effective as hypnosis. However, the basis on which
measurements have been made are, at best, subjective and, more likely, suspect. Also, recent
research26 indicates that CI results in higher error rates, especially among young children and
mentally handicapped witnesses, as a result of a process27 in which pure memory is contami-
nated by what the witness, or someone else, has said before. So even in the applications for
which it is recommended, CI has its limitations and is not a panacea.

Neither are conventional CI tools particularly relevant in serious fraud cases because,
among other things:

• complex, multiple incidents are usually involved over extended periods of time in different
locations;

• eye witness evidence is likely to be a small part of a much bigger picture (for example, the
primary evidence in fraud cases is usually documentary, technical or verbal);

• even if he is not a participant, the witness may have personal reasons for not telling the
truth (for example, he may want to hide his own poor performance).

The method proposed below advances CI into the fraud world to deal with witnesses who find
it difficult to impart the truth because:

• of poor memory: as in conventional CI cases;
• of the complexity of the case;
• they are defending or improving their own positions;
• they are emotionally involved or fearful of the suspects or have been bribed by them;

24 e.g. police cases
25 These figures are virtually impossible to verify
26 Higham and Roberts 1996
27 Usually called ‘reminiscence’ or ‘reiteration’