A03

• What the strengths of cognitive interview?

  1. Supporting research evidence
• What are the limitations of cognitive interview?

  1. Time-consuming
  2. Comparisons are difficult
  3. Quantity vs. quality
• Strength = supporting research evidence

  • Abundance of research demonstrating benefits of implementing a CI technique in improving accuracy of eyewitnesses accounts
  • Meta-analysis carried out by Kohnken et al. (1999) found on average increase of 41% in amount of correct information generated in the CI process compared with standard interviewing techniques
  • Milne and Bull (2002) found when participants were interviewed using a combination of ‘report everything‘ and ‘mental reinstatement‘ their recall was higher than when using one individual component or the control condition
• Limitation = time-consuming

  • CI requires a lot of time and training to implement
  • Kebbell and Wagstaff (1999) reported significant problems with CI in practice
  • The interview takes a lot more time than a standard interview as more rapport needs to be established with the witness and allow them to relax prior to direct questioning
  • CI requires specialist training and many forces have not been able to provide adequate time to train staff
  • In practice the components aren't used equally frequently and police officers don’t have the time
  • Unlikely use of CI technique has been widespread
• Limitation = comparisons are difficult

  • Hard to evaluate the effectiveness of the CI when it is used in the real world as it is not just one ‘procedure’ but a collection of related techniques
  • E.g. Thames Valley Police use a version that does not include the ‘changing perspective’ component
  • Other police forces have tended to use only the ‘reinstate context’ and ‘report everything‘ components
  • Therefore hard to establish overall effectiveness of the technique when using all components
• Limitation = Quality vs. quantity

  • Kohnken et al. (1999) also found that the CI actually just increased the quantity of information but not the quality
  • There was an increase of correct information but also a 61% increase of incorrect information (false positives) when the enhanced CI was used compared to a standard interview