Cognitive interview eval Flashcards
Variations of the CI
As we have seen, research shows that some techniques of the CI are more effective and useful than others. This is a view shared by many police officers which means forces have taken a ‘pick and mix’ approach to using the CI in practice. This makes it hard to compare the effectiveness of CI in research studies because there is no common standard or CI protocol followed by everyone.
On the other hand this ‘pick and mix’ approach makes the CI flexible because it is really a collection of techniques rather than an overall method. This allows forces to evolve their own approaches, keeping what they believe will work in their own circumstances and also permits them to adapt the method to individual cases.
Therefore on balance, the variation in the use of the CI is a strength because it can be adapted to different situations. This increases its credibility in the eyes of police officers and witnesses themselves.
Support for the effectiveness of the C1
One strength of the cognitive interview is evidence that it works.
For example, a meta-analysis by Günter Köhnken et al.
(1999) combined data from 55 studies comparing the CI. (and the ECI) with the standard police interview. The CI gave an average 41% increase in accurate information compared with the standard interview. Only four studies in the analysis showed no difference between the types of interview.
This shows that the Cl is an effective technique in helping witnesses to recall information that is stored in memory (available) but not immediately accessible.
Counterpoint
Koheen et al also found an increase in the amount of inackurate information recalled by participants. This was a particular issue in the ECI, which produced more incorrect details than the CI. Cognitive interviews may sacrifice quality of EWT (i.e. accuracy) in favour of quantity (amount of details).
This means that police officers should treat eyewitness evidence from CIs/ECIs with caution.
Some elements may be more useful
One limitation of the original Cl is that not all of its elements are equally effective or useful.
Rebecca Milne and Ray Bull (2002) found that each of the four techniques used alone produced more information than the standard police interview. But they also found that using a combination of report everything and reinstate the context produced better recall than any of the other elements or combination of them. This confirmed police officers’ suspicions that some aspects of the Clare more useful than others.
This casts some doubt on the credibility of the overall cognitive interview.
The Cl is time-consuming
Another limitation is that police officers may be reluctant to use the CI because it takes more time and training than the standard police interview.
For example, more time is needed to establish rapport with a witness and allow them to relax. The Cl also requires special training and many forces do not have the resources to provide more than a few hours (Kebbell and Wagstaff 1997).
This suggests that the complete Cl as it exists is not a realistic method for police officers to use and (as in the point above) it might be better to focus on just a few key elements.
