Improving the accuracy of EWT: Cognitive Interview Flashcards
(12 cards)
What did Fisher & Geiselman argue would improve EWT?
- police should use better techniques when interviewing witnesses which should be based on how memory works
- these techniques were collectively called cognitive interview
What is cognitive interview?
A method of interviewing witnesses to help them retrieve accurate memories which is based on the psychological knowledge of human memory
What are the 4 main techniques of cognitive interview?
- Report everything
- Reinstate the context
- Reverse the order
- Change perspective
What does ‘report everything’ mean?
- witnesses encouraged to include all details of the event even though some may seem irrelevant
- small details may help to trigger important memories
What does ‘reinstate the context’ mean?
the witness should return to the original scene ‘in their mind’ and image the environment and their emotions
What does ‘reverse the order’ mean?
- events should be recalled in a different chronological order than the original
- this is done to prevent people reporting how the expect the event to happen rather than the actual events
- it also prevents dishonesty since it’s harder to lie when asked to recall in reverse order
What does ‘change perspective’ mean?
- witnesses should recall the incident from other people’s perspectives
- this is done to disrupt effect of expectations & schema on recall
- schema of a particular setting generates expectations of what should happen rather than what actually happened
What is the enhanced cognitive interview?
- Fisher et al. (1987) developed additional elements of the CI to focus on dynamic of interaction
- e.g. the interviewer needs to know when to make eye contact & when not to
- the enhanced CI includes ideas like reducing anxiety in witnesses, minimising distractions & asking open-ended questions
Evaluation: The CI is time consuming
- police may not always use the CI since it takes more time than a standard police interview
- e.g. more time is needed to establish a connection with the witness to make them comfortable
- CI also needs special training
- this means it’s unlikely the proper version of the CI will be used
Evaluation: Some elements may be more valuable than others
- Milne & Bull (2002) found that each individual element was equally valuable
- each technique on its own provided more info than a standard police interview but Milne & Bull found that using a combination of certain techniques (report everything & reinstate context) produced better recall than other conditions
- this means some aspects of the CI is more useful than others
- this is a strength as it suggests that min. 2 elements should be used to improve police interviews
- this increases credibility of the CI amongst police officers
Evaluation: Support for the effectiveness of the ECI
- research shows that ECI may offer special benefits
- e.g. a meta-analysis by Kohnken et al. (199) combined data from 50 studies & ECI provided more correct info than standard police interview
- this is a strength since it shows that there are practical benefits to police using ECI rather than the CI
- research shows that it gives police greater change of catching criminals which is beneficial to society as a whole
Evaluation: CI creates an increase in inaccurate info
- techniques of the CI aim to increase amount of correct info remembered but recall of incorrect info may also increase
- e.g. Kohnken et al. found an 81% increase of correct info but also 61% increase in incorrect info when the ECI was used instead of a standard police interview
- this means that although the CI may be beneficial as a whole it is not always credible in more accurate info being recalled
