Improving the accuracy of eyewitness testimony Flashcards
including the use of the cognitive interview
limitations of EWT
EWT is inaccurate
numerous research studies have indicated that EWT lacks accuracy due to factors such as anxiety, leading questions and post-event contamination
study into improving EWT
Fisher (1987) studied the techniques used by the police in Florida when interviewing witnesses
these factors were identified as needing improvement and called the standard interview:
- witnesses given lots of quick, direct and closed questions in a short time
- order of questions was not in a way that matched witnesses mental representation
- witnesses not able to talk freely about their experience and were interrupted
what is the cognitive interview?
a range of techniques that Fisher and Geiselman (1985) suggested police interviewers can use in order to improve the accuracy of EWT
features of the standard interview
- questions are quick, direct, closed over a short time
- question order does not match mental representation of witness
- witnesses are not able to freely talk about their experience and are frequently interrupted
features of cognitive interview (FISHER & GEISELMAN 1985)
- context reinstatement - mentally returning to the scene of the crime (physical environment and emotional state) - based on cue-dependent forgetting (context/state)
- report everything - all details mentioned even seemingly irrelevant ones
- recall from changed perspective - consider how the crime would be recalled from POV of other witnesses or criminal - holistic view of event to minimise bias and disrupt schema
- recall in reverse order - switch to different chronology to challenge expectations/schemas - e.g. start at middle to beginning
features of enhanced cognitive interview
focus on building rapport and making witness comfortable by:
- interviewer not distracting witness
witness controls flow of information
- open-ended questions
- reminded not to guess
- reduce anxiety by relaxing
research evidence to support cognitive interview - detectives
Fisher, Geiselman and Amador (1989) used a field study to compare 7 detectives trained in CI with 9 using the standard interview
found that CI trained detectives received 47% more information in real interviews after training and 63% more information than the untrained detectives
suggests the CI is effective in enhancing memory, improving information gained by real interviewing police officers
research evidence supporting cognitive interview - factors
Milne and Bull (2002) investigated the effect in recall of each of the 4 factors of the CI separately
each factor produced a similar level of recall however context reinstatement and report everything condition produced significantly more correct recall
suggests no one factor is more important but the effect of the CI is cumulative
research evidence for and against cognitive interview
in a meta-analysis of 42 studies including over 2500 interviews
Kohnkan et al (1999) found a significant increase in the amount of correct information recalled
but also found a significant increase in the amount of incorrect information recalled resulting in a very similar accuracy rate of 85% for CI and 82% for SI
suggests the CI may be of limited practical use due to increased errors
evaluations of cognitive interviews
- not practical - time-consuming, expensive and requires training and investment - may not be useful in a time-sensitive case or if police force have limited financial resources
+ cost-benefit analysis consider - benefit to the justice system and economy outweighs additional resources invested in training to make a more effective police force - reduces crime - not effective in recognition of suspects from photographs - limited usefulness
+/- effective in older children and adults but not with young children - Holliday modified CI to developmental level to provide a more accurate testimony than SI in 4-5 year olds
