Standard and Cognitive Interviews Flashcards
What are some features of a standard police interview?
Revolves around interviewer and not witness, interviewer does most talking including specific, forced choice questions, witnesses can’t add much detail, interviewers may unconsciously use leading questions, increasing innaccurate information.
Cognitive Interview
A police technqiue for interviewing witnesses to a crime, which encourages them to recreate the original context in order to increase the accessibility of stored information.
Who developed the cognitive interview?
Fisher and Geiselman (1992).
What are the four key aspects of a cognitive interview?
Report everything, consistent reinstatement, reversing the order, and changing the perspective.
Report Everything
Eyewitnesses are encouraged to report every detail, no matter how small.
Why are witnesses encouraged to report everything?
Some details may trigger other memories that contain crucial evidence.
Context Reinstatement
Eyewitnesses are asked to place themselves at the scene of the crime and are asked questions about the environment.
Why is context reinstatement used?
This is to prevent context-dependent forgetting from taking place.
Reversing the Order
The eyewitnesses are asked to recall the event in various orders to normal.
Why is reversing the order used?
This helps to avoid personal expectations of how the event happened being reported. It is also harder to be dishonest when events are reversed.
Change Perspective
Eyewitnesses are asked to recall events from another person’s perspective.
Why is changing perspective used?
Avoids the effects of personal expectations and schemas disrupting memories.
Enhanced Cognitive Interview - Fisher et al. (1987)
Focused on social aspects of an interview, such as minimal external distractions, getting the witness to speak slowly, varied eye contact, and open-ended questions.
Fisher et al. (1989) - Aim
To study and test the cognitive interview technique in the field.
Fisher et al. (1989) - Procedure
From 16 detectives from Florida, all with 5+ years of experience, seven were trained with the cognitive interview, the other nine using standard interviews. Interviews were recorded and analysed by a team in California, who did not know which were cognitive or not.
Fisher et al. (1989) - Findings
Found that those trained in cognitive interview gathered 63% more information than standard.
Fisher et al. (1989) - Conclusion
Shows that the cognitive interview is effective, and could be used to help solve more crimes.
Fisher et al. (1989) - Strengths
- Use of a field experiment means for good ecological validity.
- The analysists were not told which interviews were cognitive, preventing any biases from taking place.
- The study is replicable, and therefore, reliable.
Fisher et al. (1989) - Limitations
- Low population validity - all interviewers were from Florida, and only 16 were studied. Findings are therefore, hard to generalise.
- The questions asked in the interviews were not standardised, meaning the study lacks reliability.
- Validity may be lacking in that each witness was asked different questions. Other factors within the quesrions may be affecting the results found.
- Field experiment means for a lack of control of extraneous variables, lowering validity.
Kohnken et al. (1999) - Summary
Used a meta-analysis and found that witnesses recalled more incorrect information with the cognitive interview, possibly as more detailed recall increases chances of making mistakes.
Cognitive Interviews - Strengths
- Supporting evidence from Fisher et al. (1989).
- More structured than standard interviews.
- Usefulness - well-suited for thoroughness in crime-related interviews, gathering enough detail for testimony.
- As the cognitive interview gathers much more information, this is also likely to gather more correct, important information.
- Reduces number of miscarriages of justice.
Cognitive Interviews - Limitations
- Contradictory evidence from Kohnken et al. (1999) - found that more incorrect information is recalled.
- Cognitve interviews are much more time-consuming.
- Different police forces will use the cognitive techniques differently, making it difficult to evaluate its effectiveness accurately.
- Shorter, precise eyewitness accounts are preferred, and easier to analyse.
- Demands are placed on the interviewer to probe effectively.
- Being trained in cognitive interview techniques is further time-consuming, and the quantity and quality of training is limited.
