4.1.2 Improving the accuracy of eyewitness testimony: cognitive memory Flashcards
Cognitive memory
A method of interviewing eyewitnesses to help them retrieve more accurate memories.
Ronald Fisher and Edward Geiselman (1992) argued that EWT could be improved if the police used better techniques when interviewing witnesses.
It uses four main techniques, all evidence-based on psychological knowledge of human memory.
People remember things better if they are provided with retrieval cues.
Order of cognitive interview
Report everything
Reinstatement of context
Change/reverse order
Change perspective
Report everything
Remember information associated with all your senses. Witnesses are encouraged to recall every single detail of the event no matter how insignificant it might appear. It doesn’t matter how confident the witness is, these details might trigger other memories.
Reinstatement of context
Revisit the scene in vivo (in the mind) or in vitro (physically). Witnesses are encouraged to return to the context in their mind and picture the environment, what they could see and how they were feeling.
Change/reverse order
Recall the scene in a different chronological order. For example, what had happened last instead of what was the first thing you recall occurring. Witnesses must do this to prevent expectation of what happened influencing their recall, or to prevent dishonesty. It’s harder for someone to recall events in a different order.
Change perspective
Try to recall the sequence of events from another person’s point of view. For example what do you think your friends had seen? Do you think that they saw the man coming from behind you? Witnesses are encouraged to do this to prevent expectation or ‘schema’ of events disrupting their recall.
The enhanced cognitive interview (ECI)
Fisher et al. (1987) developed some additional elements of the CI – these focussed more on the social dynamics of the interaction.
These included:
* When the interviewer needs to establish eye contact and when to relinquish it
* Reducing eyewitness anxiety
* Minimising distractions
* Getting witnesses to speak slowly and concisely
* Asking open-ended questions
ECI evaluation
- Support for effectiveness of the CI
- Gunter Kohnken et al. (1999) did a meta-analysis from 55 studies comparing the CI (and ECI) with the standard police interview
- The CI gave an average 41% increase in accurate information compared to the standard interview
- Only 4 studies showed no difference between the two types of interviews
- This shows that CI is an effective technique in helping witnesses to recall information that is stored in memory but not easily accessible.
ECI counterpoint to Kohnen
- Kohnen et al. also found an increase in the amount of inaccurate information recalled by the participants
- This was more common during ECI
- Cognitive interviews may sacrifice quality EWT (accuracy) in favour of quantity (amount of details)
- This means that police officers should treat eyewitness evidence from CI/ECI with caution
ECI some elements may be more useful
- Not all the elements of CI are effective
- Rebecca Milne and Ray Bull (2002) found that each of the 4 techniques used alone produced more information than the standard police interview
- They found that a combination of report everything and reinstate the context produced better recall than any of the other elements
- This confirms police officers suspicions that some aspects of the CI are more useful than others
- This casts doubt on the credibility of the overall cognitive interview
ECI the CI is time-consuming
- Police officers may be reluctant to use CI as it’s time consuming and extra training is needed
- More time is needed to build rapport with the witnesses and allow them to relax
- This suggest that the complete CI is not a realistic method for police officers to use and it might be better just to focus on a few key elements
- Police forces have instead taken on a ‘pick and mix’ approach – making it more flexible and allowing individual officers to use techniques they find work for them
