eyewitness testimony: the cognitive interview

• ao3: One strength is research support for the effectiveness of the Cl.

  • A meta-analysis by Köhnken et al. (1999) combined data from 55 studies comparing CI (and ECI) with the standard police interview
  • The CI produced an average of 41% more correct information than the standard interview. Only four studies showed no difference
  • This shows that the CI is effective in helping witnesses recall information that is available but not accessible.
• ao3: COUNTERPOINT TO STRENGTH IF RESEARCH SUPPORT FOR EFFECTIVENESS OF THE CI

  • Köhnken et al. also found increases in the amount of inaccurate information, especially in the ECI (quantity over quality)
  • Therefore police officers need to be very careful about how they treat eyewitness evidence from Cls/ECIS
• ao3: One limitation is that some elements of the Cl are more useful than others.

  • Milne and Bull (2002) found that each individual technique of the Cl alone produced more information than the standard police interview.
  • But they also found that combining report everything and reinstate the context produced better recall than any other technique individually or combined.
  • This casts doubt on the credibility of the overall CI because some of the techniques are less effective than the others.
• ao3: Another limitation of the CI is that it is time-consuming.

  • Police are 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).
  • The Cl also requires special training but many forces do not have the resources to provide more than a few hours' training (Kebbell and Wagstaff 1997).
  • This suggests that the complete Cl is not realistic for police officers to use and it might be better (as suggested above) to focus on just a few ke elements.
• ao1: the cognitive interview- Based on psychological understanding of memory

  • Fisher and Geiselman (1992) claimed that EWT could be improved if the police use techniques based on psychological insights into how memory works.
  • They called it the cognitive interview to indicate its foundation in cognitive psychology.
  • Rapport (understanding) is established with interviewee using four main techniques.
• ao1: 1. Report everything

  • Witnesses are encouraged to include every detail of an event, even if it seems irrelevant or the witness is not confident about it
  • Seemingly trivial details could be important and may trigger other memories.
• ao1: 2. Reinstate everything

  • The witness returns to the original crime scene 'in their mind' and imagines the environment (eg. the weather, what they could see) and their emotions (e.g. what they felt).
  • This is based on the concept of context-dependent forgetting. Cues from the context may trigger recall.
• ao1: 3. Reverse the order

  • Events are recalled in a different order (e.g. from the end back to the beginning, or from the middle to the beginning).
  • This prevents people basing their descriptions on their expectations of how the event must have happened rather than the actual events.
  • It also prevents dishonesty (harder to produce an untruthful account if it has to be reversed).
• ao1: 4. Change perspective

  • Witnesses recall the incident from other people's perspectives. How would it have appeared to another witness or to the perpetrator?
  • This prevents the influence of expectations and schema on recall. Schema are packages of information developed through experience. They generate a framework for interpreting incoming information
• ao1: Plus the Enganced cognitive interview (ECI)

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