Improving accuracy of eyewitness testimony: Cognitive interview Flashcards
Cognitive interview
Cognitive interview
Fisher & Geiselmann argued eyewitness testimony could be improved if police used better techniques when interviewing witnesses
They recommended that such techniques should be based on psychological insights into how mem works
Called these techniques collectively the cog interview (CI)
Report everything
Cognitive interview
Witness are encouraged to include every single detail of event, even though it may seem irrelevant or witness doesn’t feel confident about it
Seemingly trivial details may be important & may trigger other important mems
Reinstate the context
Cognitive interview
Witness should return to OG crime scene ‘in their mind’ & imagine environment & their emotions
This is related to context-dependent forgetting
Reverse the order
Cognitive interview
Events should be recalled in diff order from OG sequence (i.e. from final point back to beginning)
This is done to prevent people reporting expectations of how event must have happened rather than reporting actual events
Also prevents dishonesty - harder to produce untruthful account if they have to reverse it
Change the perspective
Cognitive interview
Witnesses should recall the incident from other people’s perspectives
E.g. how it would have appeared to other witnesses or perpetrator
This again is done to disrupt effect of expectations & schema on recall
The schema you have for particular setting generate expectations of what would have happened & it is schema that is recalled rather than what actually happend
Enhanced cognitive interview (ECI)
Cognitive interview
Fisher et al developed additional elements of CI to focus on social dynamics of interaction
Interviewer needs to know when to establish eye contact & when to relinquish it
Enhanced CI also includes ideas such as reducing eyewitness anxiety, minimsing distractions, getting witness to speak slowly & asking open-ended questions
Evaluation: Support for effectiveness of CI
Cognitive interview
Strength: evidence that it works
Meta-analysis by Kohnken et al combined data from 55 studies comparing CI w/ standard police interview
CI gave average 41% increase in accurate info compared w/ standard interview
Only 4 studies in analysis showed no diff between types of interview
Shows that CI is effective technique in helping witnesses recall info stored in mem but not immediately accessible
Evaluation: Support for effectiveness of CI (Counterpoint)
Cognitive interview
However, Kohnken et al found increase in amount of inaccurate info recalled by ppts
This was particular issue in ECI, which produced more incorrect details than the CI
CIs may sacrifice quality (accuracy) of EWT in favour of quantity
Therefore, police officers should treat eyewitness evidence from CIs/ECIs with caution
Evaluation: Some elements may be more useful
Cognitive interview
Limit: not all elements of CI are equally effective or useful
Milne & Bull found that each of the 4 techniques used alone produced more info than standard police interview
They also found that using combo of report everything & reinstate context produced better recall than any other element or combo of them
This confirmed police officers’ suspicions that some aspects of CI are more useful than others
This casts some doubt on credibility of overall cog interview
The CI is time-consuming
Cognitive interview
Limit: police officers may be reluctant to use CI as it takes more time & training than the standard police interview
E.g. more time is needed to establish rapport w/ witness & allow them to relax
CI also required special training & many forces don’t have resources to provide more than a few hours (Kebbell & Wagstaff)
Therefore, complete CI as it exists is not realistic method for police officers to use & might be better to focus on just a few key elements
