EWT - Cognitive Interview Flashcards
The Cognitive Interview
1) Fisher and Geiselman (1992) claimed that EWT could
be improved if the police use techniques based on psychological insights into how memory works.
2) They called it the cognitive interview to indicate its foundation in cognitive psychology.
3) Rapport (understanding) is established with interviewee using four main techniques.
1) Report Everything
1) Witnesses are encouraged to include every detail of an event, even if it seems irrelevant or the witness is not confident about it.
—> Seemingly trivial details could be important and may trigger other memories.
2) Reinstate Context
1) The witness returns to the original crime scene ‘in their mind’ and imagines the environment (e.g. the weather, what they could see) and their emotions (e.g. what they felt).
This is based on the concept of context-dependent forgetting.
—> Cues from the context may trigger recall.
3) Reverse Order
1) Events recalled in different order (e.g. from the end back to the beginning, or from the middle to the beginning).
2) This prevents people basing their descriptions on their expectations of how the event must have happened rather than the actual events.
3) It also prevents dishonesty (harder to produce an untruthful account if it has to be reversed).
4) Change Perspective
1) Witnesses recall the incident from other people’s perspectives. How would it have appeared to another witness or to the perpetrator?
—> This prevents the influence of expectations and schema on recall. Schema are packages of info developed through experience. They generate a framework for interpreting incoming info.
Enhanced Cognitive Interview
Fisher et al. (1987) developed additional elements of the Cl.
1) This includes a focus on the social dynamics of the interaction (e.g. knowing when to establish and relinquish eye contact).
2) The enhanced Cl also includes ideas such as reducing the eyewitness’s anxiety, minimising distractions, getting the witness to speak slowly and asking open-ended questions.
STRENGTH of CI
RESEARCH SUPPORT FOR EFFECTIVENESS OF CI
1) A meta-analysis by Köhnken et al. (1999) combined data from
55 studies comparing CI (and ECI) with the standard police interview.
2) The Cl produced an average of 41% more correct info than the standard interview. Only 4 studies showed no difference.
—> This shows that the Cl is effective in helping witnesses recall info that is available but not accessible.
LIMITATION of CI
SOME ELEMENTS OF CI ARE MORE USEFUL THAN OTHERS
1) Researchers found that each
individual technique of the Cl alone produced more info than the standard police interview.
2) But they also found that combining report everything and
reinstate the context produced better recall than any other technique individually or combined.
—> This casts doubt on the credibility of the overall Cl because some of the techniques are less effective than the others.
LIMITATION of CI
TIME-CONSUMING
1) Police are reluctant to
use the Cl because it
takes more time than
the standard police
interview (e.g. to
establish rapport and
allow the witness to
relax).
2) The Cl also requires
special training but
many forces do not
have the resources to
provide more than a
few hours’ training
(Kebbell and Wagstaff
1997).
—> This suggests that the complete Cl is not realistic for police officers to use and it might be better to focus on just a few key elements.
EXTRA EVALUATION
VARIATION OF CI
1) Police forces take a ‘pick
and mix’ approach in
practice which makes
it hard to compare
effectiveness in studies.
2) However, this
approach makes
the Cl more flexible
because police forces
(or individuals) evolve their own approaches depending on what they think works best.
—> This variation is a benefit of the Cl because it can be adapted to different situations, increasing its credibility for officers, though not for empirical research.
