The Cognitive Interview Flashcards
The Cognitive Interview
The Cognitive Interview is a method developed to enhance the accuracy of eyewitness testimonies during police interviews. It was designed as an alternative to traditional police interview methods, utilising techniques that strengthen memory retrieval, especially retrieval cues, which the standard police interview was restrictive in doing.
Who proposed The Cognitive Interview?
Fisher and Geiselman
What are the 4 main techniques used in the Cognitive Interview?
- Context Reinstatement
- Report Everything
- Change the Order
- Change the Perspective
- Context Reinstatement
- This involves asking the witness to mentally recreate the context of the event, such as the physical environment and their emotional state.
- The idea is to trigger memories by placing the person back in the same context as the event.
- They would then be asked to describe subtle details, such as what the weather was like, what they could hear to help overcome context-dependent forgetting.
- Report Everything
- Witnesses are encouraged to report all details, even if they seem trivial or irrelevant.
- This is based on the idea that seemingly insignificant details may help to trigger other memories either directly or inadvertently that regardless, are important to the investigation.
- Change the Order
- This technique involves asking the witness to recall the event in a different chronological order, for example, starting from the end of the event or recalling the event backwards.
- This helps to prevent the witness from being influenced by their expectations or schemas and reduces the likelihood of dishonesty.
- Change the Perspective
- The witness is asked to recall the event from a different perspective, such as imagining how the event may have appeared to another witness or from a different viewpoint or perhaps from the perspective of the perpetrator.
- This reduces the likelihood of memory being distorted by preconceptions and schemas.
Strength
Point: One strength of the Cognitive Interview is that it has been shown to increase the amount of accurate detail reported in eyewitness testimonies.
Evidence: Fisher et al. conducted a study where American detectives were trained to use the Cognitive Interview technique. They conducted a field experiment with real detectives and witnesses, comparing the details gathered from interviews using the Cognitive Interview and the standard police interview. The results showed that witnesses reported significantly greater detail in their accounts of crimes when the Cognitive Interview was used compared to those interviewed using standard techniques. More precisely, the trained detectives elicited approximately 47% more correct information compared to the control group using standard methods.
Justification: These results provide strong evidence for the effectiveness of the Cognitive Interview in real-world contexts, suggesting that the techniques integrated in it, such as ‘context reinstatement’ and ‘report everything’, can be successfully applied by police officers to improve eyewitness recall.
Implication: This enhances the practical value of the Cognitive Interview, showing its potential to improve the quality of eyewitness information, which is crucial for police investigations. The use of real detectives and witnesses boosts ecological validity, demonstrating its effectiveness in real-world settings. Improving accuracy in eyewitness accounts can also help reduce wrongful convictions, protecting individuals from serious consequences.
Strength
Point: Another strength of the Cognitive Interview is that it is supported by scientific evidence.
Evidence: One of the key studies supporting the Cognitive Interview comes from Geiselman et al. In their experiment, 89 participants watched a video of a crime and were then interviewed using one of three techniques: the Cognitive Interview, a standard police interview, or a hypnosis-based interview. It was found that the participants who were interviewed using the Cognitive Interview recalled significantly more accurate details (approximately 35% more information) than those interviewed via other methods.
Justification: This provides empirical support for the effectiveness of the Cognitive Interview, showing that it can increase both the quantity and quality of eyewitness recall. The significant increase in accurate details supports the claim that techniques, such as ‘context reinstatement’ enhances memory retrieval, leading to more accurate eyewitness accounts.
Implication: Consequently, this strengthens the scientific credibility of this method as findings portray its effectiveness in improving the authenticity of eyewitness testimony. This demonstrates its practicality as a tool for law enforcement, helping to gather more reliable evidence in criminal cases and potentially leading to fairer outcomes in the justice system.
Weakness
Point: A limitation of the Cognitive Interview is that it has led to an increase in the recall of incorrect or misleading information.
Evidence: Koehnken et al. conducted a meta-analysis of several studies investigating the Cognitive Interview and found that, although witnesses recalled more accurate information, they also tended to recall more incorrect details compared to when standard interview techniques were used. Specifically, the study found that the Cognitive Interview increased the amount of invalid information reported by around 61% compared to traditional methods.
Justification: These findings suggest that the Cognitive Interview may lead to the retrieval of more detailed memories, but this increase in detail comes with a trade-off: the more information a witness recalls, the greater the likelihood of errors. For example, the technique ‘report everything’ may encourage witnesses to fabricate erroneous events, leading to inconsistency.
Implication: This limits the practical value of the Cognitive Interview as whilst it can be effective in enhancing recall, it may also introduce a higher risk of inaccurate and contradictory information, which can lead to law enforcement agencies making wrong judgements. It emphasises the need for such enforcement bodies to consider using the Cognitive Interview alongside other safeguards, such as corroborative evidence, to ensure that the increased recall does not lead to wrongful conclusions.
Weakness
Point: Additionally, a limitation of the Cognitive Interview is that it requires police officers to undergo specific training, which can be costly and time-consuming, and may not always be implemented correctly in practice.
Evidence: Research has shown that effective use of the Cognitive Interview depends heavily on the skill and training of the interviewer. For example, Kebbell and Wagstaff found that some police officers reported difficulties in applying the techniques of the Cognitive Interview, particularly the more complex elements, such as ‘change the order’ and ‘change the perspective’. Furthermore, training programs require both time and financial resources, which puts a strain on police budgets and may limit the number of officers who can be effectively trained.
Justification: This demonstrates that while the Cognitive Interview has the potential to improve the accuracy and detail of eyewitness testimony, its effectiveness is not always guaranteed unless officers are properly trained and are able to apply the techniques correctly. Furthermore, if techniques are incorrectly applied, this would mean that all the time and money spent training would have been futile and could have been spent elsewhere, for example, money could have instead been spent on the provision of equipment, such as weapons and ammunition.
Implication: As a result, this reduces the reliability of the Cognitive Interview as whilst it increases the depth of eyewitness testimonies, if it isn’t incorporated properly, it can be potentially compromising in criminal investigations. Furthermore, enforcement agencies need to carefully weigh the costs and benefits of training officers in regards to the Cognitive Interview to avoid unnecessarily wasting time and money, and to ensure richness and profundity of eyewitness testimonies.
