本研究主要目的為討論認知性晤談(cognitive interview, CI)在證人證詞與證人指認的影響，以結構式晤談(structure interview, SI)做為控制組，並討論修正後的認知性晤談(modified cognitive interview, MCI)除了在證詞質和量上不遜於認知性晤談外，是否因為沒有語言遮蔽效果(verbal overshadowing effect, VOE)而在指認正確率上，更優於認知性晤談。此外，本研究以行為研究與ERPs實驗，選擇P300及FN400兩個腦波成份做為分析，試圖為證人指認建立良好的生理指標。受試者為三十名大學生，分別探討證人證詞的品質、證人指認之正確率及腦波的結果，刺激材料為五分鐘左右的無暴力犯罪影片，受試者在影片結束後隨機分成三組，分別為結構式晤談、認知性晤談與修正後認知性晤談，接著被要求在四張照片中指認出影片中的犯人。結果發現，認知性晤談在證詞的質與量上皆顯著優於結構式晤談，在訊息量上，修正後認知性晤談僅略低於結構式晤談，確實不失為一個良好的偵查工具；三種不同的晤談方法在指認正確率上並無顯著差異存在，但以趨勢上而言，認知性晤談因為語言遮蔽效果的產生，而使得指認正確率低於另外兩種晤談方式，而修正後的認知性晤談在正確率上雖低於結構式晤談，但高於認知性晤談；P300的分析上有顯著且一致的發現，P300的確可以正確區分出嫌犯與陪襯者，是為良好的生理指標；另外，在FN400對於嫌犯與陪襯者的反應無顯著的差異存在。最後也針對可能的限制和未來的研究方向加以討論。
 

In present study we investigated the effect of cognitive interview (CI) on eyewitness testimony and identification. Structure interview (SI) was used as a control condition. If identification accuracy in modified cognitive interview (MCI) did not reduce by verbal overshadowing effect (VOE), MCI may have higher accuracy than CI. We examined the P300 and FN400 difference on suspect and filler conditions, to establish a reliable physiological indicator. Subjects were tested in two sessions. Upon arrival at the first session subjects individually viewed 5 minutes non-violent crime video. The second session subjects were random assigned to one of three interview conditions. Subjects were then asked to identify the culprit in crime and the ERPs data were recorded. Results revealed that MCI was more effective than SI and more identification accuracy than CI in general. P300 can correctly distinguish from target stimulus/suspect and non-target stimulus/filler. However, FN400 cannot differentiate from these two kinds of stimulus. Both of P300 and FN400 did not influence by interview types. Limitations of this study and future research directions are discussed.

目錄
摘要 I
ABSTRACT II
誌謝 III
目錄 IV
表目錄 VI
圖目錄 VII
第一章 緒論 1
第二章 文獻探討 6
第一節 證人證詞的基本現象 6
1.1 個人特徵(individual characteristics) 6
1.2 共同證人(co-witness) 7
1.3 信心程度(confident level) 9
1.4 知覺歷程類型(perceptual processing style) 10
第二節 認知性晤談在證人證詞上的表現 11
第三節 語言遮蔽效果(VERBAL OVERSHADOWING EFFECT, VOE) 15
第四節 事件相關電位(EVENT-RELATED POTENTIALS) 18
4.1 P300 19
4.2 早期中額葉新舊效果 /頂葉新舊效果 20
第三章 研究方法與結果 23
3.1 研究假設 23
3.2 實驗設計 24
3.3 受試者 24
3.4 實驗材料 24
3.5 實驗程序 25
3.6 ERP分析 27
3.7.1 證詞品質結果 28
3.7.2 證人指認結果 30
3.7.3 ERP結果 32
第四章 綜合討論與研究限制 41
第一節 綜合討論 41
第二節 研究限制與未來發展 43
參考文獻 46
附錄 50

表目錄
表一 目擊證人指認因素表 7
表二 晤談法內容流程之比較 16
表三 受試者回憶訊息量描述性統計 28
表四 不同晤談法下嫌犯指認人次 30
表五 嫌犯指認正確率卡方檢定 31
表六 本研究與CURRAN & CLEARY (2003)結果比較表 42

 
圖目錄
圖一 字詞辨識作業 10
圖二 P300在嫌犯與陪襯者之間的差異 20
圖三 實驗程序示意圖 27
圖四 三種訊息類型證詞品質結果 29
圖五 不同晤談法下嫌犯指認正確率百分比 31
圖六 案件相關人、物指認之受試者對目標刺激與非目標刺激的P300振幅差異 33
圖七 犯人指認之受試者對嫌犯與陪襯者的P300振幅差異 35
圖八 案件相關人、物指認之受試者對目標刺激與非目標刺激的FN400振幅差異 37
圖九 犯人指認之受試者對嫌犯與陪襯者的FN400振幅差異 39
圖十 不同年齡與指認方式之指認正確率結果 44

 
附錄
附錄一 指認題目 50
第一部影片的指認題目 50
第二部影片的指認題目 52
第三部影片的指認題目 54
後備影片的指認題目 56
附錄二 最高法院【99台上1702】號判決要旨 58
附錄三 我國嫌犯照片指認格式 59
附錄四 MCI組受試者之草圖 60
MCI組第二十二號受試者之草圖 60
MCI組第二十五號受試者之草圖 61
MCI組第二十八號受試者之草圖 62

參考文獻
中文部分
洪蘭(民88)。從證人證詞到被壓抑的記憶-記憶是可靠的嗎？刑事法雜誌，3(42)，25-40。
鄭仕坤(民94)。事件相關腦電位在情節記憶的研究進展。應用心理研究，28，75-90。
毕研玲、丁建略、李纾(民97)。目击者信心与正确率的关系及影响因素。人类工效学，3(14)，65-68。
林秀如(民83)。誘導問題類型對目擊證詞的影響之發展趨勢研究。 輔仁應用心理碩士論文。台灣，台北。
丹尼爾沙克特(民 91)。記憶七罪(李明譯)。台北：大塊文化。
伊莉莎白羅芙托斯與凱薩琳科茜(民94)。辯方證人──一個心理學家的法庭故事(浩平譯)。台北：商周出版。(原著出版年：1999年)
羅雨恆(2002，6月24日)。陳奕煌／與李師科案太多巧合　王迎先成代罪羔羊。2011年9月16日取自http://www.nownews.com/2002/06/24/322-1319488.htm
陳慧女與林明傑(民92)。兒童性侵害案件中的專家證人與兒童作證。社區發展季刊，103，212-225。
許潔怡(民97)。刑事訴訟程序中兒童證言之研究─以證言可信度為中心。國立成功大學法律學研究所碩士論文。台灣，台南。
英文部分
Allwood, C. M., Ask, K. & Granhag, P. A. (2005) The Cognitive Interview: Effects on the realism in witness’ confidence in their free recall. Psychology, Crime & Law, 11(2), 183-198.
Christianson, S. Ä ., & Hubinette, B. (1993). Hands up! A study of witnesses’ emotional reactions and memories associated with bank robberies. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 77, 365-379.
Curran, T. & Cleary, A. M. (2003). Using ERPs to dissociate recollection from familiarity in picture recognition. Cognitive Brain Research, 15,191-205.
Curran, T. (2000). Brain potentials of recollection and familiarity. Memory and Cognition, 28, 923-938.
Dando, C., Wilcock, R, & Milne, R. (2009b). The Cognitive Interview: The efficacy of a modified mental reinstatement of context procedure for frontline police investigators. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 138-147.
Dando, C., Wilcock, R. & Milne, R. (2008). The cognitive interview: Inexperienced police officers’ perceptions of their witness/victim interviewing practices. Legal and Criminological Psychology. 13, 59–70.
Dando, C., Wilcock, R. & Milne, R. (2009a). The cognitive interview: Novice police officers' witness/victim interviewing practices. Psychology, Crime and Law, 15, 679-696.
Dando, C., Wilcock, R., Milne, R., & Henry, L. (2009). A modified cognitive interview procedure for frontline police investigators. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 698-716.
Darling, S., Martin, D., Hellmann, J. H. & Memon, A. (2009). Some witnesses are better than others. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 369-373.
Finger, K., & Pezdek, K. (1999). The effect of the cognitive interview on face recognition accuracy: Release from verbal overshadowing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 340-348.
Fisher, R., & Geiselman, R. (1992). Memory-enhancing techniques for investigative Interviewing:The cognitive interview. Springfield: Charles Thomas.
Fisher, R.P. & McCauley, M.R. (1995). Improving eyewitness testimony with the cognitive interview. Applied Psychology: Individual, Social and Community issue, 1, 141-159.
Ginet, M. & Verkampt, F. (2007). The cognitive interview: is its benefit affected by the level of witness emotion? Memory, 15(4), 450-464.
Granhag, P. A., Jonsson, A. C. & Allwood, C. M. (2004). The cognitive interview and its effect on witnesses’ confidence. Psychology, Crime & Law, 10(1), 37-52.
Gwyer, P.,& Clifford, B.R. (1997). The effects of the cognitive interview on recall, identification, confidence and the confidence / accuracy relationship. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 11, 121–145.
Hernández-Fernaud E. & Alonso-Quecuty M. (1997). The Cognitive Interview and Lie Detection: a New Magnifying Glass for Sherlock Holmes? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 11, 55-68.
Kebbell, M. R. (2009). Witness confidence and accuracy: Is a positive relationship maintained for recall under interview condition? Journal of Investigative and Offender Profiling, 6, 11-23.
Köhnken, G., Milne, R., Memon, A. & Bull, R. (1999). A meta-analysis on the effects of the cognitive interview. Psychology, Crime and Law, 5, 3-27.
Lefebvre, C. D., Marchand, Y., Smith, S. M. & Connolly, J. F. (2007).Determining eyewitness identification accuracy using event-related brain potentials(ERPs). Psychophysiology, 44, 894-904.
Lefebvre, C. D., Marchand, Y., Smith, S. M. & Connolly, J. F. (2009). Use of event-related brain potentials(ERPs) to assess eyewitness accuracy and deception. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 73, 218–225.
Leippe, M. R., Eisenstadt, D., Rauch, S. M., & Stambush, M. (2006). Effects of social-comparative memory feedback on eyewitnesses’ identification confidence, suggestibility and retrospective memory reports. Applied Social Psychology, 28, 201-220.
Lindsay R. C. L., Pozzulo J. D., Craig W., Lee K., and Corber S.(1997). Simultaneous Lineups, Sequential Lineups, and Showups: Eyewitness Identification Decisions of Adults and Children. Law and Human Behavior, 21(4), 391-404.
Lindsay, R. C. L., Pozzulo, J. D., Craig, W., Lee, K. & Corber, S. (1997). Simultaneous Lineups, Sequential Lineups, and Showups: Eyewitness Identification Decisions of Adults and Children. Law and Human Behavior, 21(4), 391-404.
Lloyd-Jones, T. J. & Brown, C. (2008). Verbal overshadowing of multiple face recognition: Effect on remember and knowing over time. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 20(3), 456-477.
Macrae, C. N., & Lewis, H. L. (2002). Do I know you? Processing orientation and face recognition. American Psychological Society, 13(2), 194-196.
Meijer, E.H., Smulders, F.T.Y., Merckelbach, H.L.G.J. & Wolf, A.G. ( 2007). The P300 is sensitive to concealed face recognition. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 66, 231-237.
Meissner, C. A., & Memon, A. (2002). Verbal overshadowing: A special issue exploring theoretical and applied issues. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 16, 869-872.
Memon, A., & Higham, P. A. (in press) A review of the cognition interview. Psychology, Crime and Law.
Memon, A., Wark, L., Holly, A., Bull, R. & Koehnken, G. (1997). Eyewitness Performance in Cognitive and Structured Interview. MEMORY, 5 (5),639-656.
Mertens, R., & Allen, J. J. B. (2008). The role of psychophysiology in forensic assessments: Deception detection, ERPs, and virtual reality mock crime scenarios. Psychophysiology, 45, 286-298.
Miline, R. & Bull, R. (2002). Back to Basics: A Componential Analysis of the Original Cognitive Interview Mnemonics with Three Age Groups. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 16, 743-753.
Milne, R., & Bull, R. (1999). Investigative interviewing: Psychology and practice. Chichester: John Wiley & Son.
Rugg, M. D., Mark, R. E., Walla, P., Schloerscheidt, A. M., Birch, C. S., & Allan, K.(1998). Dissociation of the neural correlates of implicit and explicit memory. Nature, 392, 595-598.
Schooler, J. W., & Engstler-Schooler, T. Y. (1990). Verbal overshadowing of visual memories: Some things are better left unsaid. Cognitive Psychology, 22, 36-71.
Schooler, J. W., Fiore, S. M., & Brandimonte, M. A. (1997)At a loss from words: Verbal overshadowing of perceptual memories. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 37, 291-340.
Skagerberg, E. M. & Wright, D. B. (2008a). The prevalence of co-witness discussions in real eyewitnesses. Psychology, Crime & Law, 14(6), 513-521.
Skagerberg, E. M. & Wright, D. B. (2008b). The co-witness misinformation effect: Memory blends or memory compliance? MEMORY, 16 (4),436-442.
Stein, L. M. & Memon, A. (2006). Testing the Effivacy of the Cognitive Interview in a Developing Country. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 597-605.
Valentine, T., Pickering, A., & Darling, S. (2003). Characteristics of eyewitness identification that predict the outcome of real lineups. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 969-993.
Well, G. L., Malpass, R. S., Linsay, R. C. L., Fisher, R. P., Turtle, J. W. & Fulero, S. M. (2000). From the lab to the police station: A successful application of eyewitness research. American Psychologist, 55(6), 581-598.
Wells, G. L. & Loftus, E. F. (2003). Eyewitness Memory for People and Events. Goldstein, Alan M. & Weiner, Irving B. (Ed.), Handbook of Psychology: Forensic psychology(pp. 149-160). New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Wells, G. L. & Olson E. A. (2003). EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 277-295.