Improving the accuracy of eyewitness testimony: cognitive interview Flashcards
What do Fisher & Gieselman argue about eyewitness testimony?
- argued that EWT could be improved if police used better techniques when interviewing witnesses.
What do Fisher & Gieselman recommend?
- techniques should be based on psychological insights - such as the cognitive interview
What are the four main techniques used in the cognitive interview?
- report everything
- reinstate the context
- reverse the order
- change perspective
explain report everything technique
- witnesses are encouraged to include every single detail of the event even trivial details
Why is the reporting everything technique effective?
- trivial details may be important and may trigger other memories
Explain reinstate the context technique
- witnesses should return to original crime scene ‘in their mind’
- imagine the environment and what their emotions were like
Why is the reinstate the context technique effective?
- linked to context-dependent forgetting
- more likely to recall information if we are in environment where encoding took place
Explain reverse the order technique
- events should be recalled in a different order from original sequence i.e. middle to beginning
Why is the reverse the order technique effective?
- prevents people reporting their expectations of how the event happened
- also prevents dishonesty (harder to lie)
Explain change the perspective technique
- Witnesses should recall the incident from other peoples perspective i.e. other witnesses or the perpetrator
Why is the change the perspective technique effective?
- disrupts the effect of schema on recall (expectations of what happened in a particular setting)
What additional elements did Fisher develop and why?
- The enhanced cognitive interview (ECI)
- developed to focus on the social dynamics of the interaction e.g.
-interviewer needs to know when to maintain eye contact
-reducing eyewitness anxiety
-minimise distractions - asking open-ended questions
What research is there to support the effectiveness of the cognitive interview?
- evidence that it works
- Kohnken et al conducted a meta-analysis combining data from 55 studies comparing the CI with standard police interviews
- CI increased accuracy of information by 41% compared to standard police interview
- shows that the CI is an effective technique in helping witnesses to recall information
What is a counterpoint for research support for the effectiveness of the CI?
- Kohnken also found an increase in the amount of inaccurate information recalled by P’s
- particular issue in ECI
- Cognitive interviews may sacrifice quality of EWT ( accuracy) in favour of quantity
- PO’s should treat EW evidence from CI/ECI’s with caution
What is a limitation of the cognitive interview concerning some of its elements?
- not all elements of the CI are equally effective or useful
- Milne & Bull found that each of the four techniques used alone produced more info than the standard police interview
- A combo of ‘report everything’ & ‘reinstate the context’ produced better recall than any other elements
- cast some doubt on the credibility of the overall CI