Component 3: Crime - Collection of Evidence (Interviewing) Flashcards
What is the aim of interviewing?
To psychologically manipulate a suspect or witness into making a confession and are non-accusatory following a question-and-answer format.
What is the aim of interrogation?
This is accusatory, coercive and aims to discourage suspect from talking unless they are willing to confess. This is the most widely taught method in the US.
What is the Reid technique?
- The suspect is isolated in a small, bare room. The interrogator confronts the suspect with a strong assertion of guilt, often accompanied by incriminating evidence, real or contrived.
- The interrogator urges the suspect to tell the truth and minimises the seriousness of the offence or offers moral justifications.
- The interrogator interrupts all denial efforts if the suspect continues to maintain their innocence.
- The interrogator aims to overcome the suspect’s moral, factual and emotional objections as to why they could or would not have committed the crime.
- If the suspect responds to the pressure by passive withdrawal, the interrogator must regain the suspect’s attention.
- This is done by showing sympathy and understanding to get the suspect to cooperate.
- Two guilty interpretations of the crime are presented, one of which is more acceptable than the other.
- If the suspect accepts the lesser alternative, a preliminary admission of guilt, then the interrogator seeks a fuller admission with details about the crime.
- This is converted into a full written confession detailing what, how and why, that will prove credible in court.
What is the standard interview technique?
Police have traditionally received very little training in interviewing techniques and have been free to ask whatever questions they feel are suitable. They frequently interrupt, ask short-answer questions and follow an inappropriate sequence of questioning. The term ‘standard interview’ does not actually refer to one specific technique.
What is the cognitive interview?
- Context reinstatement - this is based on research that shows recall is improved when we recall in the same or similar context to the one in which material is learned. Police interviewers should encourage the witness to reinstate the context in their mind. They may encourage the witness to close their eyes and imagine themselves back in the situation.
- In depth reporting - this stage is to ask the witness to tell the story of what happened, in their own words and in as much detail as possible. There should be no interruptions and witnesses should be encouraged to report everything they can recall, even if it seems irrelevant. The interviewer’s job at this stage is to encourage and support rather than ask questions.
- Narrative reordering - ask the witness to recall the story again but from a different perspective or from a different starting point. Reporting a story backwards means that later elements provide cues to earlier ones, rather than the other way around. This helps to see who is lying or hiding information.
- Reporting from different perspectives - finally, the witness has to tell the story again but from the perspective of another witness. It is acknowledged that some of this may be speculation but this may produce cues that generate new memories.
Explain Fisher’s (1989) study into the effectiveness of the cognitive interview.
Fisher (1989) compared the performance of experienced detectives before and after training in the CI technique and compared their post-training performance to a control group. It was a field experiment with repeated measures. The sample was 16 experienced detectives from Florida. Seven completed the CI course and the rest acted as the control group. Each detective recorded 507 interviews over 4 months with 88 total interviews recorded. After, 7 detectives underwent 4 training sessions of 1 hour each and a further 47 interviews were recorded. Interviews were transcribes and scored by independent judges and the numbers of relevant, factual and objective statements were recorded. The results showed 47% more information was recorded in the post training interviews and 6/7 detectives did better post training (the detective who did not improve did not use the strategies that had been taught) The trained group were compared to the control group and 63% more information was recorded.
What is the enhanced congnitive interview?
This uses the same four techniques as CI but adds social aspects to the setting and procedure which appears to improve communication. This includes ensuring distractions are kept to a minimum, allowing pauses and being as sensitive as possible.
What theories is Memon and Higham’s research based on?
Many factors influence effective communication. According to Gorden (1975) these include inhibitors that make effective communication less likely e.g. an unwillingness to give information; facilitators that make effective communication more likely e.g. appealing to interviewee’s sense of altruism.
Questioning produces much better recall if it follows the chronological order of events rather than asking questions in any order.
What was the research method of Memon and Higham’s research?
Review structured around 4 key themes.
What did Memon and Higham say about the effectiveness of the cognitive interview?
They tried to identify which component of the CI is the most effective. This is done by isolating each component and testing them individually. Memon did this in one of his own studies with children aged 5-8 years old using one of three CI techniques: context reinstatement, narrative reordering or changing perspective. A control group were asked to try harder. No significant difference was found.
A later study by Milne compared the full CI procedure with each of the individual components. She found that the full CI procedure was more effective than the individual components with the exception of the context reinstatement group.
Concluded that context reinstatement is the most effective component.
What did Memon and Higham say about the relationship between CI and other interviewing methods?
In early research, CI was most commonly compared with the standard interview. However, the standard interview is not a standard set of procedures meaning it is almost impossible to compare the two as they differ in so many ways. E.g. it is suggested that interviewers with training may be better because of learning to avoid problems with standard interview rather than because of specific CI techniques. It is also impossible to control for individual differences in they styles of interviewers in the standard interview as there are so many.
They concluded that this comparison was useful to begin with when the key question was if CI was more effective than procedures used by the majority of the police but now research has moved onto testing the effectiveness of individual components. They recommended that researchers do not compare to the standard interview in future but rather the structured interview with encourages interviewers to build rapport, allow time for narrative descriptions and avoid interruptions.
What did Memon and Higham say about different measures of memory performance and the effect this has on research?
The majority of studies measure performance in terms of a percentage of correct statements or an absolute number of correct statements. This causes problems as it neglects to consider the amount and the nature of unreported information. We know from ab research that CI produces more information than Structured interviews. Measures of memory need to take into account that the CI may be changing an interviewee’s understanding of what it is that the interviewer wants.
What did Memon and Higham say about interviewer variables and the effect of training quality on interviewer performance?
The amount of training interviewers receive seems to vary from study to study. Research has shown that conducting CI is significantly more demanding and exhausting and places more cognitive demand on interviewers meaning it may well produce mor errors. This is why M&H claim that quality and quantity of training is important. In Memon’s own studies she showed that just 4 hours of training showed no significant improvement. It is also possible that individual differences such as attitudes, motivation and prior experience needs to be taken into account. A study by Memon showed that many police officers resisted to training, failed to follow instructions and used poor questioning techniques. This may be dependant on who is providing the training. They also suggest that establishing a baseline score for interviewer performance may be useful in comparing the effectiveness. They suggest a minimum of two days training and to consider the individual differences of police officers. Some may have potential and motivation to be good interviewers so should be pushed in this direction whilst others may be guided towards other aspects of police work. They do acknowledge that this assumes that poor interviewers would not benefit from good training ad that those who are already good would become even better.
What did Memon and Higham conclude?
There is still the need for good research into the CI technique. In particular researchers need to appropriate comparison groups and suitable measures of memory.
What is the PEACE model for interviewing?
Preparation and Planning: plan the interview carefully including plotting a timeline of what is known, setting objectives, listing ‘facts’ that need ti be verified and they need to acknowledge any practical issues.
Engage and Explain: engage with the witness, form rapport and explain the purpose of the interview.
Account,Clarification and Challenge: allow witness to first to give their account of the event with no interruptions. They should use open questions, summarise information given to them, ask interviewee for clarification or further details and keep summarising, repeating and questioning until everything is clear. If the interviewee is being dishonest it becomes clear at this point.
Closure: interviewers should close down the interview properly reinforcing rapport so witness is more likely to speak to them again. They should make sure they have all contact details.
Evaluation: Interviewer must evaluate the interview they have just conducted to establish whether everything was covered or if there were any inconsistencies that were not followed up.
