Cognitive Interview - Improving the accuracy of eyewitness testimony. Flashcards
Who created CI and why?
Geiselman and Fisher developed CI to increase the amount of accurate information provided by witnesses.
What are the 4 main techniques of CI?
Report everything, reinstate the context, reverse the order, change perspective
Describe Report everything
Witnesses are encouraged to include every single detail even if it may seem trivial as they may trigger other important memories.
Describe Reverse the order
Events should be recalled in a different order rather than the original sequence. It prevents dishonesty and people reporting expectations of how the event occurred rather than reporting the actual events.
Describe Reinstate the context
Witnesses should imagine the environment and emotions
Describe Change perspective
Witnesses recall the incident from another persons point of view. This is done to minimise the effects of schemas.
What is enhanced cognitive interview?
CI that focuses on the social dynamics of the interaction (i.e. eye contact). i.e. reduces eyewitness anxiety, minimise distractions, speak slowly
What are the evaluations of cognitive interview
Evidence that it works, (counterpoint) Köhnken also found an increase in the amount of inaccurate information recalled by participants, Not all elements of the original CI are equally effective or useful, Police officers may be reluctant to use the CI because it takes more time and training than the standard police interview.
Evaluation: Evidence that it works
One strength of the the cognitive interview is evidence that it works. For example, a meta-analysis by Kohnken combined data from 55 studies comparing the CI with the standard police interview. The CI gave an average 41% percent 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 CI is an effective technique in helping witnesses to recall information that is stored in memory but not immediately accessible.
Evaluation: (counterpoint) Kohnken also found an increase in the amount of inaccurate information recalled by participants.
Kohnken also found an increase in the amount of inaccurate information recalled by participants. This wasa particular issue in the ECI, which produced more incorrect details than the CI. Cognitive interviews may sacrafice quality of EWT (i.e. accuracy) in favour of quantity (amount of details). This means that police officers should treat eye witnesses evidence froms CIs/ECIs with caution.
Evaluation: Not all elements of the original CI are equally effective or useful.
One limitation is that not all elements of the original CI are equally effective or useful. Milne and Bull 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 CI are more useful than others. This casts some doubt on the credibility of the overall cognitive interview.
Evaluation: Police officers may be reluctant to use the CI because it takes more time and training than standard police interview.
One limitation is that police officers may be reluctant to use the CI because it takes more time and training than standard police interview. For example more time is needed to establish rapport with a witness and allow them to relax. The CI also requires special training and many forces do not have the resources to provide more than a few hours. This sugguests that the complete CI as it exists is not a realistic method for police officers to use and it might be better to foucs on just a few key elements.
