Memen & Higham (Topic 3 crim) Flashcards
Aim
Review article, meaning researchers not reporting on research personally conducted, researchers collated evidence from number of studies on specific topic.
Authors have structured their review around 4 key themes.
4 key themes review structured around
1- components of cognitive interview (CI)
2- isolating the effective components of the CI
3- the enhanced CI (ECI)
4- comparison interviews (and the effect of training quality on interview performance)
Review article
Brings together number of pieces of research conducted by other authors rather than reporting original research by author.
May identify themes/ conclusions by careful examination of wide range of research- may assess number of pieces of research against objective criteria.
Method:
1) Effectiveness of cognitive interview
Authors attempt to identify which components of CI are effective.
One way to do so, test each component in isolation.
Research sparse in this area.
In one of Memon’s own studies college students were interviewed about a staged event using 1/3 cognitive interview stages.
A control group were told to “try harder”.
Results:
Effectiveness of cognitive interview
No significant differences in recall performance across all 4 conditions.
Later study by Milne 1997 compared full CI procedure with each individual component, found no differences across the different component groups, but did find that full CI procedure produced more recall than any single component group, except context reinstatement which was concluded most effective component of CI, however combination of 4 components is most effective form.
3 cognitive interview stages
1- context reinstatement
2- narrative re-ordering
3- reporting from different perspectives
2) Relationship between CI and other interviewing methods such as standard interview & structured interview
Valid research into effectiveness of CI technique should show it leads to enhanced memory performance in comparison to other police interviewing techniques.
Early research compared cognitive interview with standard.
It is impossible to compare the two and produce valid results as they differ in so many ways.
Cognitive interview compared to structured; research found cognitive interview produces more info from witnesses than structured, concluding structured provides better comparison group to investigate effectiveness of CI.
standard interview
Technique commonly used by police, has NO standardised set of procedures, is associated with number of inappropriate interview techniques; firing lots of questions, asking leading questions, interrupting recall
structured interview
Encourages interviewers to build rapport, allow time for narrative descriptions, avoid rushing/ interrupting, encourages use of good questioning techniques.
(structured similar to enhanced cognitive interview minus cognitive components for enhancing memory performance such as context reinstatement)
3) Different measures of memory performance and effect this has on research findings
Memon & Higham suggest research up to this point was simplistic, majority of studies investigated simple measures of memory performance e.g percentage of correct interview statements elicited or absolute number of correct/incorrect statements.
This causes problems- neglects consideration of amount and nature of unreported info.
Therefore measures of memory need to be able to take into account fact that CI may be changing interviewee’s understanding of what is expected of them in terms of memory recall.
4) Interviewer variables and effect of training quality on interview performance.
When investigating CI, problem surrounds amount of training interviewers are given, varies depending on research.
Sometimes training was reading set of CI instructions from handout.
Research shown cognitive interviewers report conducting a CI is more ‘demanding and exhausting’ than conducting a standard interview.
Hence Memon & Higham’s claim that sufficient training is needed for officers using this technique.
Results & practical applications:
Interviewer variables and effect of training quality on interview performance.
Memon demonstrated in one of own studies that 4 hours of CI training did NOT produce any significant differences between cognitive interview and standard interview.
Results suggest a need for improved training and more practice to encourage officers to use it effectively.
M&H further claim variables like experience, attitudes, motivation and who provides training determine results of CI also.
Some officers show resistance to being trained- this can depend on who is training them.
Individual differences of interviewers are key; attitudes, motivation, prior experience.
Interviewers with potential should be guided towards role of investigative detective.
M&H recommend 2-day training course for police forces in order that they benefit from using CI in witness questioning.
Conclusion
Improved research into CI still needed.
In particular, researchers need to establish appropriate control groups & suitable measures of memory.
Even if comparisons are restricted to other interview techniques e.g standard interview, individual diffs still remain significant challenge for researchers.
Usefulness
Can be considered useful- rather than drawing conclusions about effectiveness of CI from single piece of research, conducted review summarising main findings from multiple studies.
Can identify number of themes to draw consistent conclusions across research; effectiveness of cognitive interview difficult to research.
Review doesn’t have ethical implications or need to maintain controls like psychological research.
Useful suggestions from research regarding CI: interviewers should attend 2 day programme & those with good interviewer potential should be encouraged to become investigative detective.
Psychology as a science
Maintain psych as a science important in psychological research!
M&H highlight issues raised in relation to examination of effectiveness of CI.
Demonstrate how research been unable to identify which component most effective in CI.
Also highlight methodological issues could have influences results; individual differences in attitudes, motivation, experience & training.
