Memory- Improving The Accuracy Of Eyewitness Testimomy: Cognitive Interview Flashcards
Cognitive interview (CI) -
A method of interviewing eyewitnesses to help them retrieve more accurate memories. It uses four main techniques, all based on well-established psychological knowledge of human memory - report everything, reinstate the context, reverse the order, and change perspective.
What did Fisher and Geiselman (1992) propose to improve eyewitness testimony?
They proposed that police use techniques based on psychological insights into memory, collectively called the cognitive interview (CI), to enhance eyewitness recall.
What are the four main techniques of the cognitive interview?
The four techniques are:
1. Report everything – witnesses include every detail, even if it seems irrelevant.
2. Reinstate the context – witnesses mentally return to the crime scene, recalling the environment and emotions.
3. Reverse the order – events are recalled in a different chronological order to prevent expectations or dishonesty.
4. Change perspective – witnesses recall the incident from others’ perspectives to disrupt schema-driven recall.
What is the purpose of the “report everything” technique?
It encourages witnesses to include every detail, as seemingly trivial information may be important or trigger other memories.
How does the “reinstate the context” technique work?
Witnesses imagine the original crime scene, including environmental details (e.g., weather) and their emotions, to improve recall through context-dependent memory.
Why is the “reverse the order” technique used?
Recalling events in a non-chronological order prevents witnesses from reporting expectations or schemas instead of actual events and makes dishonesty more difficult.
What is the goal of the “change perspective” technique?
Witnesses recall the event from others’ perspectives to disrupt the influence of expectations and schemas on memory.
What is the enhanced cognitive interview (ECI), and what does it include?
The ECI, developed by Fisher et al. (1987), adds social dynamics to the CI, such as managing eye contact, reducing anxiety, minimizing distractions, encouraging slow speech, and asking open-ended questions.
Why might police be reluctant to use the cognitive interview?
The CI is time-consuming, requires special training, and takes longer than standard interviews, making it less practical for many police forces.
What did Milne and Bull (2002) find about the effectiveness of individual CI techniques?
Each technique used singly produced more information than standard interviews, but combining “report everything” and “reinstate the context” yielded the best recall.
What did Köhnken et al. (1999) find about the enhanced cognitive interview?
A meta-analysis of 50 studies showed the ECI consistently provided more correct information than standard police interviews, supporting its practical benefits.
What is a limitation of the cognitive interview regarding inaccurate information?
While the CI increases correct information, it also increases incorrect information (false positives), with Köhnken et al. (1999) reporting an 81% increase in correct information and a 61% increase in incorrect information.
Why is variation in CI techniques a problem for evaluating its effectiveness?
Different studies and police forces use slightly different versions of the CI, making it difficult to assess its overall effectiveness and usefulness consistently.
What are the ethical and practical implications of police forces developing their own CI variations?
Variations may tailor the CI to specific needs but could also lead to inconsistent application and effectiveness, raising questions about its reliability and standardization.
