Improving the accuracy of eyewitness testimony-Cognitive interview Flashcards
What did Fisher and Gieselman argue?
That eyewitness testimony could be improved if the police used better techniques when interviewing witnesses. They recommended techniques based on pschological insights, which are called the cognitive interview.
What are the four main techniques in the cognitive interview?
Report everything, reinstate the context, reverse the order, change perspective.
What does report everything mean?
Witnesses are encouraged to include every detail of the event as they may be important and may trigger other important memories.
What does report reinstate the context mean?
Witnesses should return to the original scene in their mind and imagine the environment and their emotionsr. This prevents context-dependent forgetting.
What does report reverse the order mean?
Events should be recalled in a different chronological order to the original sequence. This prevents people reporting their expectatopms and prevents dishonesty.
What does change perspective mean?
Witnesses should recall the incident from other people’s perspectives. This prevents the effects of expectations and schema on recall.
What is the enhanced cognitive interview?
Fisher et al developed additional elements of CI to focus on the social aspects of interaction. For example, holding eye contact or minimising distractions.
What are the strengths of CI?
There is support for the effectiveness of CI as Kohnken et al did a meta-analysis and showed that there was an increase in accurate information from CI.
Some elements are more valuable than others in CI and so they can be used to improve police interviews even if full CI isn’t.
What are the weaknesses of CI?
The CI is time consuming as police have to be trained and then takes more time to carry out, meaning it is unlikely to be used effectively or at all.
Variations of CI are used, meaning the police may not use it properly and it won’t be as effective. This also means that it is hard to repeat studies.
Khonken et al found that there was a 61% increase in incorrect information when enhanced CI was used compared to CI, meaning it may not be as valuable.
