memory- eye witness testimony: the cognitive interview

Question 1

what’s the cognitive interview?

Answer 1

-Fisher and Geiselman (1992) claimed that EWT could be improved
-police use techniques based on psychological insights into how memory works
-called it the cognitive interview to indicate its foundation in cognitive psychology.
-Rapport (understanding) is established with interviewee using four main techniques.

Question 2

four techniques used in CI

Answer 2

-report everything
-reinstate context
-reverse order
-change perspective

Question 3

report everything in CI

Answer 3

-witness encouraged to include every detail of event, even if seems irrelevant or not confident ab it
-seemingly trivial details could be important and trigger other memories

Question 4

reinstate context in CI

Answer 4

-witness returns to original crime scene ‘in their mind’ and imagines environment (e.g. rather, what they could see) and their emotions
-based on concept of context-dependant forgetting.
-cues from environment may trigger recall

Question 5

reverse order in CI

Answer 5

-events recalled in different order(from end to beginning, or from middle to beginning)
-prevents people basing descriptions on expectations of how event must have happened rather than actual events
-also prevents dishonesty (harder to produce untruthful account if it has to be reversed)

Question 6

change perspective in CI

Answer 6

-witnesses recall the incident from other people’s perspectives
-how would it have appeared to another witness or to the perpetrator?
-prevents the influence of expectations and schema on recall
-breaks up schemas
-schema are packages of information developed through experience-generate a framework for interpreting incoming info

Question 7

Enhanced cognitive interview (ECI).

Answer 7

-Fisher et al. (1987) developed additional elements of the CI.
-focus on the social dynamics of the interaction (e.g. knowing when to establish and relinquish eye contact).
-ideas such as reducing the eyewitness’s anxiety
-minimising distractions
-getting the witness to speak slowly
-asking open-ended questions.

Question 8

ao3 of CI: research support for effectiveness of CI

Answer 8

-meta-analysis by Köhnken et al. (1999) combined data from 55 studies comparing CI and ECI with standard police interview
-CI produced an average of 41% more correct info than standard interview. only four studies showed no diff
-shows CI is effective in helping witnesses recall info that is available but not accessible

Question 9

ao3 of CI: CA for research support of CI’s effectiveness

Answer 9

-köhnken et al. also found increases in the amount of inaccurate info, especially in the ECI (quantity over quality).
-so police officers need to be very careful about how they treat eyewitness evidence from Cls/ECIs.

Question 10

ao3 of CI: some elements more useful than others

Answer 10

-Milne and Bull (2002)
found each individual technique of the Cl alone produced more information than standard police interview
-also found that combining report everything and reinstate the context produced better recall than any other technique individually or combined
-casts doubt on the credibility of the overall
CI because some of the techniques are less effective than the others.

Question 11

ao3 of CI: time-consuming

Answer 11

-police reluctant to use the CI because it takes more time than the standard police interview (e.g. to establish rapport and allow the witness to relax)
-also requires special training but many forces do not have the resources to provide more than a few hours’ training (Kebbell and Wagstaff 1997)
-the complete Cl is not realistic for police to use, might be better to focus on a few key elements.