Kohnken et al (1999) conducted a meta-analysis, combining data from 55 studies comparing the cognitive interview with the standard police interview
The cognitive interview gave an average 41% increase in accurate information compared with the standard interview and only 4 studies in the analysis showed no difference between the types of interview
This shows that the cognitive interview is an effective technique in helping witnesses to recall information that is stored in the memory but not immediately accessible
What is a limitation for the Cognitive Interview?
Lack of Accuracy
Kohnken et al (1999) also found an increase in the amount of inaccurate information recalled by the participants, which was particularly an issue with the enhancedcognitiveinterview
Cognitive interviews may sacrifice the accuracy of eyewitness testimony in favour of amount of details
This means that police officers should treat eyewitness evidence from cognitive interviews with caution
What is a limitation for the Cognitive Interview?
Some Elements May Be More Useful
Milne & Bull (2002) found that each of the 4 techniques used alone produced more information than standard police interview
They also found that using a combination of reporting everything and reinstating context produced better recall than any of the other elements, which confirmed that some aspects of cognitive interviews are more useful than others
This casts some doubt on the credibility of the overall cognitive interview
What is a limitation of the Cognitive Interview?
The Cognitive Interview is Time-Consuming
More time is needed to establish a rapport with the witness and allow them to relax
The cognitive interview also requires special training and many forces do not have the resources to provide more than a few hours
This suggests that the complete cognitive interview as it exists is not a realistic method for police officers to use and it might be better to focus on just a few key elements