Cognitive interview

• Cognitive interview


  A method of interviewing based on techniques to improve memory recall. Aim is to reduce leading questions.
• 4 stages of cognitive interview

  • Report everything
  • Context reinstatement
  • Recall in reverse order
  • Recall from a changed perspective
• Report everything

  • Witnesses are encouraged to include every single detail of an event, even if they feel it is irrelevant.
  • Information that may seem trivial or unimportant could trigger other important memories or help build a story.
• Reinstate context

  • Witnesses should return to the original crime scene ‘in their mind’
  • Need to imagine emotions and environment.
  • Related to context dependent forgetting.
  • Gives witnesses a clue
• Recall in reverse order

  • Events should be recalled in a different chronological order e.g start from the end, or remind the police what happened at a certain point.
  • Prevents witnesses from reporting their expectations of a crime and prevents dishonesty.
  • If we start from the beginning, it allows witnesses to have expectations of what happened or what normally would happen in crimes.
• Change perspective

  • Events should be recalled from another person’s point of view
  • E.g how would it have appeared to another witness or the perpetrator
  • Disrupts the expectations and schemas a witness may have.
• Support for the effectiveness of cognitive interview

  • For example, a meta-analysis by Kohnken et al combined data from 50 studies. The results concluded that enhanced cognitive interview consistently provided more correct information.
  • The meta-analysis suggests that by using cognitive interview there is the ability to obtain accurate information from eyewitnesses, which increases the chances of identifying criminals. This will help ensure society is protected from criminals.
  • We can conclude that cognitive interviews are an effective way of obtaining accurate eyewitness testimonies.
• Some elements of the cognitive interview are more valuable than others

  • Milne and Bull found that despite each element of the cognitive interview being valuable, a combination of report everything and context reinstatement produced better recall than any other conditions.
  • Evidence suggests that these 2 features e.g report everything and context reinstatement should be used at the very least.
  • This questions whether the overall cognitive interview is even needed.
• Time consuming

  • Kebbell and Wagstaff found that more time is needed to establish rapport with the witness and allow them to relax. The CI also requires special training and many forces have not been able to provide more than a few hours.
  • Crimes or accidents are traumatising experiences so it is important for the police to form a level of trust and provide them with a safe place to disclose information. Training also takes a long amount of time and can be off-putting alongside other demands of the police force.
  • Suggests the CI is impractical and not easily implemented.
• CI can increase amount of inaccurate information

  • Supported by Kohnken at al who found 81% increase of correct information but also a 61% increase of incorrect information.
  • Findings suggest that cognitive interviews may not produce the most accurate eyewitness testimonies. This can be detrimental when prosecuting a suspect as there is the potential to convict an innocent person.
  • Shows cognitive interviews may not be as effective and so the police will need to remain cautious of what has been expressed by an eyewitness as we cannot guarantee this is correct.