Memon & Higham Flashcards
What is the background?
Fisher - trained detectives conduct CI interviews = 46% increase in recall and 90% accuracy = found CI more effective
What is the aim?
to review the cognitive interview based on four areas
What are the 4 areas of the aim?
- effectiveness of CI components
- relationship between CI and other interviewing methods
- measures of memory performance
- effect of training on interviewer performance
What are the different types of interview that the CI was compared against?
- standard interview
- guided memory interview
- structured interview
What is the method?
research article
What are the weaknesses of the method?
just a collection of subjective opinions of previous research = less valid when drawing conclusions
What type of data does the research collect?
qualitative secondary
What are the key parts of the “components of CI” section of the research article?
- reconstructive memory (physical and personal contexts)
- emotional reactions
- effective retrieval cues
- maximising memory retrieval
- reporting everything without screening out ‘unimportant’ info
- variety of perspectives
- forces change in retrieval
- additional information recalled
- diff starting points
What are the key parts of the “isolation” section of the research article?
- Memon 1996 = 5 and 8 year old children as witnesses = staged event
- hypothesis = increase in recall with CI = result of additional retrieval attempt
- hypothesis supported - no sig diff in recall
- younger children difficulty in using CI techniques
- Milne (1997) = no diff in any CI technique - support Memon’s findings
- Full CI = most recall
- context reinstatement = most effective
What are the key parts of the “ECI” section of the research article?
- combines CI techniques with some strategies to improve communication
- transfer of control
- open questions and rapport building
- effectiveness of CI is due to improved communication
- imaging not prompt by interviewer suggestions - danger of creating false memories
- contextual reinstatement - limits confusion, non-suggestive, only effective technique
What are the key parts of the “comparison” section of the research article for standard interviews?
- highly variable
- undesirable characteristics (that are absent in CI)
- rapid fire questions
- does not provide tight experimental control
- issues may be due to training of interviewers rather than interviews - CI interviewers are specially trained = more motivated
- individual differences in interview style
What are the key parts of the “comparison” section of the research article for guided memory interviews?
- contextual reinstatement
- mentally reinstate contexts
- Devine = staged act of vandalism - guided through each step and probed for info
- visualise each sequence of the event
- form image of perpetrator
- recognition accuracy enhanced with GMI
- CI does not enhance eyewitness identification from line ups
What are the key parts of the “comparison” section of the research article for structured interviews?
- build rapport with witness
- narrative descriptions
- non-interruptive, expansive, active listening, open questions
- positive aspects of SI present in ECI
- info elicited in CI exceeds SI
- both produce comparable accuracy rates
What are the issues drawn about measures of memory?
- ignores amount and nature of unreported info
- impossible to determine false alarm rates as well as sensitivity and bias
- overall output greater for CI
- clear predictions
- accuracy should improve = Koriat and Goldsmith
- no associated loss in accuracy = counters K&G
- CI has retrieval and memory monitoring
What are the issues drawn about quality of training?
- amount and quality not specified
- not trained in depth only given set of simple instructions
- differences in attitude, motivation, and prior experience play big role for interviewers
- police showed considerable resistance to training
What are Memon and Higham’s suggestions for training?
- two day training programme
- guide candidates who already have potential to make good interviewers to make good interviewers even better rather than making weak interviewers good
evaluate according to reliability
Strengths
- ECI very standardised
Weaknesses
- SI not as standardised due to interruptions = inconsistent
evaluates according to validity
Strengths
- blind testing protocol - eliminates bias
- field exp = ecologically validity
Weaknesses
- field = EVs not controlled = causality not established
evaluate according to data
strengths
- lots of in depth and detailed reasoning behind behaviour
weaknesses
- subjectively interpreted
- hard to compare and analyse
evaluate according to samples and ethnocentrism
strengths
- partially replicated some research of children with adults = more generalisable
weaknesses
- age bias - children M&H = 5-9 year olds
- western vs non-western moral differences and M&H = only western
evaluate according to ethics and socially sensitive
strengths
- UK = PACE - no coercive methods + should be not be placed under any stressful situations
weaknesses
- US lack protection from harm during interrogations
- false confessions = very socially sensitive
evaluate according to usefulness
strengths
training programmes
increased understanding
CI = more info recalled = effective
weaknesses
false confessions
training depends on quality
evaluate according to psych as a science
strengths
testing hypothesis
experimental methods
empirical evidence
weaknesses
qualitative data = subjective
evaluate according to reductionism vs holism
reductionist = scientific BUT ignores complex interactions
evaluate according to determinism vs free will
free will = ability to decide how much info to share = element of free will (report everything)
determinism = coercive nature and effectiveness of CIs
evaluate according to nature vs nurture
ignores nature
evaluate according to individual vs situational
ignores the individual
