Improving the accuracy of EWT - The cognitive Interview

Question 1

The four components of the cognitive interview technique

Answer 1

Mental reinstatement of original context
Report absolutely everything
Changing the order of recall
Changing the perspective

Question 2

What is Changing the perspective

Answer 2

Changing the perspective – eyewitnesses are asked to imagine how the incident would have appeared to other witnesses present at the time (to disrupt the effects that schemas have on recall).

Question 2

who came up with the cognitive interview

Answer 2

Fisher and Geiselman (1992)

Question 3

what is Changing the order of recall

Answer 3

Changing the order of recall - not necessarily starting from the beginning. Perhaps recalling it in reverse order or starting from the most memorable aspect (to disrupt the effects that schemas have on recall).

Question 4

what is Report absolutely everything

Answer 4

Report absolutely everything – even if it seems minor or insignificant as this could trigger the recollection of another memory, as memories are interconnected.

Question 5

what is Mental reinstatement of original context

Answer 5

Mental reinstatement of original context – mentally recreate the physical and psychological environment of the original incident e.g. weather, smells, lighting, other people, emotions at the time (which act as contextual and emotional cues to retrieve memories).

Question 6

Examples of questions/instructions that could be given:
Mental reinstatement of original context

Answer 6

“Think back to the day the event happened, what had you been doing? What was the weather like? How did you feel at the time?”

Question 7

Examples of questions/instructions that could be given:
Report absolutely everything

Answer 7

“Please tell me everything that you can remember about the event, anything that pops into your head, even partial memories, or things you think may not be important.”

Question 8

Examples of questions/instructions that could be given:
Changing the order of recall

Answer 8

“I would like you to tell me what happened backwards. What is the very last thing that you remember happening? What happened before that? And just before that?”

Question 9

Examples of questions/instructions that could be given:
Changing the perspective

Answer 9

“Try to recall the incident from the perspective of another person. Think about where he/she was. Describe what he/she would have seen.”

Question 10

Useful Acronym to remember the 4 techniques

Answer 10

CORE CRAP
CO- changing order
RE-Recall everything
CR-Context reinstatement
AP- Alter perspective

Question 11

Background Information: The Standard Police Interview
Key Features

Answer 11

Key features:
Revolves around the interviewer rather than the witness.
The interviewer does most of the talking, often asking forced choice answers, such as “Was the criminal black or white?” and frequently interrupts the eyewitness.
Questions are often predetermined, following a written checklist. Witnesses are discouraged from adding extra information.
The interviewer may unconsciously ask leading questions to confirm his/her beliefs about the crime, thus potentially contaminating a witness’ memory, creating false memories.
Predetermined practices encourage witnesses to withhold information, give abbreviated answers and provide answers they are unsure of.

Question 12

Geiselman et al. (1988) Procedure

Answer 12

Procedure: Showed a video (ecological validity?) of violent crimes to 89 students (population validity?), who were then interviewed about 48 hours later using the Cognitive Interview or standard police interviewing techniques.

Question 13

Geiselman et al. (1988) Findings

Answer 13

Cognitive Interview-
Correct items: 41.5
Incorrect items (e.g. recalled the assailant wearing a brown coat instead of a black one: 7.3
Confabulated items (item described that was not actually in the video): 0.7

Standard Interview-
Correct items: 29.4
Incorrect items (e.g. recalled the assailant wearing a brown coat instead of a black one: 6.1
Confabulated items (item described that was not actually in the video): 0.4

Question 14

Geiselman et al. (1988) Conclusion

Answer 14

Conclusion: The students recalled considerably more correct items in the CI than the standard interview, however, the error rates were very similar

Question 15

Kohnken et al. (1999) procedure

Answer 15

Kohnken et al. (1999) – conducted a meta-analysis of 55 studies and found there was an increase of 81% (on average) in the amount of accurate information produced when using the cognitive interview, compared with standard interviewing techniques.
However, CI’s also produced 61% more inaccurate information than the SPI. They also found that CI’s generate more correct detail when used soon after a crime has been witnessed, rather than a long time afterwards. Why do you think this is?
Most of these studies involved volunteer witnesses (often college students – lacks population validity), who were tested in laboratory conditions, which may not reflect real-world practices (lacks ecological validity).

Question 16

Are some of the components more successful than others?

Answer 16

Milne and Bull (2002) interviewed undergraduates and children using just one individual component of the CI and compared the responses to a control condition.
They found that recall was broadly similar across each of the four individual components compared to the control condition.
However, when interviewed using a combination of the ‘report everything’ and ‘mental reinstatement’ components, recall was significantly higher than in other conditions.
They concluded that these components were particularly successful in generating accurate information.

Question 17

Evaluating the Cognitive Interview: Practical Issues

Answer 17

 The interview is no longer just one procedure: Different techniques are used by different forces. For example, the Thames Valley Police use a version that does not include the ‘changing perspectives’ component. Other forces report using the ‘report everything’ and ‘mental reinstatement’ components due to their success.

 Time-consuming: This interview technique requires more time than is often available, which causes police officers to resort to other strategies that may limit the amount of information that can be provided.

 Training issue: CI requires special training and many forces have not been able to provide more than a few hours. Therefore, the quality and quantity of training of ‘cognitive interview’ interviewers has become a critical issue.

 Individual differences: Research suggests that the CI may be particularly useful when interviewing older witnesses (Mello and Fisher, 1996).