Evaluation of Cognitive Interviews for Understanding the Offender Flashcards
+ Geiselman and Fisher (film of crime)
Geiselman and Fisher got participants to watch a video of a violent crime, and recall it a few days later through one of either:
- Standard interview
- Hypnosis
- Cognitive interview
It was found that cognitive interviews produced the most accurate recall - validates idea that cognitive interviews provide generally accurate recall of incidents from witnesses
Kohnken (meta-analysis)
Kohnken carried out a meta-analysis of 53 studies and found that CIs elicited an average of 34% more detail than the standard interview without the loss of accuracy found in hypnosis - validates the technique in suggesting that it produces far more accurate accounts than other methods of memory extraction
Stein and Memon (cleaning staff)
Stein and Memon tested real-life cleaning staff in Brazil and found that the CI technique increased the amount of correct information and richness in detail - validates CI technique with ecologically valid research
- Kohnken (meta-analysis)
Kohnken also found that, although correct information obtained increased through use of CI method, the amount of incorrect information also increased compared to the standard interview technique - refutes method, suggesting that it produces significant incorrect recally, reducing its validity`
- Studies using videos
Many of the studies on the effectiveness of CI are done using videos of crimes - studies backing up CI are based on non-ecologically valid evidence and are not representative of real life recall, reducing validity of method
- Use with young children
Young children seem to find the instructions confusing and as a result produce less accurate recall. Geiselman recommends it is only used on children aged 8+ years - reduces effectiveness as a method, especially when young children are the witnesses to important incidents
