The Cognitive Interview

• what is the cognitive interview?

  • police technqiue for interviewing eyewitnesses to crime, which encourages them to recreate the original context in order to increase the accessibility of stored info.
  • aim is to uncover peripheral info that may not necessarily come to mind straight away.
• what are the 4 stages of the cognitive interview?

  1. cognitive reinstatement.
  2. recall from a changed perspective.
  3. change of the narrative order.
  4. report everything.
• stage 1- cognitive reinstatement

  • trying to mentally recreate an image of the situation, including details of the environment and the individual's emotional state, including their feelings at the time of the incident.
  • why is this used to improve recall?

  may act as a trigger to recall, contextual and emotional cues should enable the witness to retrieve memories, allowing their testimony to be improved.
• stage 2- recall from a changed perspective

  • trying to mentally recreate the situation from diff POV's, e.g. describing what another witness present at the scene would have seen.
  • why is this used?

  promotes more 'holisitc' view of the event which may enhance recall.
• stage 3- change of the narrative order

  • the witness is asked to describe the scene in a diff chronological order, e.g. from the end to the beginning.
  • why is this used?

  to verify accuracy. if any false events are included they will be recalled differently, when the order changes.
• stage 4- report everything

  • the interviewer encourages the witness to report all details about the event, even though these details may seem unimportant.
  • why is this used?

  may highlight something that has been 'overlooked' and this may lead to a cue of recall potentially.
• how does a cognitive interview differ from a standard one?

  • a standard interview might just ask w' to recall an event, but a cognitive interview could ask them to recall the context in which the event occured. this could include environmental details and emotional factors.
  • police have to receive specialist training on main techniques used in a cognitive interview.
• fisher et al.- evidence to support the use of cognitive interview:

  • study w/ 16 detectives from the Dade county police robbery division.
  • after recording 88 interviews over 4 months, 7 of the detectives were trained in cognitive interview technqiues. interviews from both groups then recorded and analysed.
  • after training, the 7 detectives were able to obtain 47% more info than before they were trained, and 63% more info than those detectives who hadn't been trained and this only took a minimal amount of more time.
  • shows that cognitive interview technique can be used to gather more info than by using standard interview technique.
• memon et al. (2010)- evidence to support the use of cognitive interview:

  • conducted a meta-analysis to study the effectiveness of CI, 25 years after it was introduced. 57 studies were analysed.
  • found that CI produces sig. more accurate detail than the non-CI comparison, however, there is less effectiveness found when children are witnesses.
  • there was however, evidence that more inaccurate detail were found in CI techniques than others.
  • most inaccurate details and confabulations (false memories) were found in the modified cognitive interview.
• what does memon's study tell us about the effectiveness of cognitive interviews?

  • that CI does produce more info, so may be more effective than standard interview.
  • however, it may also lead to more detail that is inaccurate as people may feel pressured to record more, therefore the additional info may lack reliability.
• the enhanced cognitive interview:

  fisher & geiselman (1987) developed some additional elements of the CI to focus on the social dynamics of the interaction.

  • there must be trust in the relationship between interviewer and witness, e.g. when to use eye contact/when not to.
  • reducing eyewitness anxiety
  • minimising distractions to avoid unnecessary interruptions/questions.
  • getting witness to speak slowly and control the flow of info.
  • making sure p's don't just guess to reduce confabulations.
  • asking open ended q's.

  interviewer will also use focused memory techniques such as asking witness to focus on mental images of the memory, e.g. a person's face. idea is recall is best when linked to a mental image.
• evidence for the enhanced CI:

  coker (2013) ~

  • found that ECI technique that focused on mental imagery produced more accurate detail than the CI, esp in relation to personal details. however, it's important to note that the effect was greater the sooner the interview took place.
• the modified cognitive interview (MCI):

  • used w/ children.
  • no recall from a changed perspective is used for children as they tend to be too young to see things from another POV.

  when the CI is modified to be used w/ specific witnesses. other police forces use a shortened version of the CI and ECI as these both take more time than is available to them. generally these don't include the 'change narrative order' and 'changed perspective' component.
• evidence for the MCI:

  holliday (2003)-

  • found that childrens' (aged 4-5 and 9-10) recall of a 5 min video of a birthday party was sig. better the next day when in the MCI condition as opposed to a standard police interview.
• strengths of the cognitive interview:

  • standardised method.
  • allows access to info that eyewitness may not deem important.
  • research has found that it led to better recall of events compared to traditional interview.
  • studies are high in ecological validity- witnesses are being interviewed about real life crimes that take place, e.g. fisher et al. therefore studies can be generalised and help to improve EWT.
  • research into effectiveness of CI technique has been useful in improving interview techniques in Brazil, where police traditionally use interrogation, torture and ill treatment.
• weaknesses of the cognitive interview:

  • can still lead to false memories/inaccurate recall, esp in MCI.
  • highly trained professionals needed to avoid leading q's.
  • recall from other's perspective may lead to p's thinking they're being asked to speculate. this however, has tried to be addressed in the ECI.
  • needs to be carried out soon after event to be effective.
  • it's not effective for all witnesses. more effective for older witnesses but not so much for children.
• peel paragraph for evaluating (strength):

  P- research into effectiveness of CI technique has been useful in improving interview techniques in Brazil where police traditonally use interrogation, torture and ill treatment.

  E- stein & mermon showed uni cleaning staff a video of an abduction. compared to standard police interviews, CI showed increased amount of correct recall, e.g. detailed descriptions of the man holding the gun.

  E- findings suggest that CI technique could be used to develop new approach to interviewing witnesses in Brazil, which will hopefully lead to reduction in amount of miscarriages of justice.

  L- research demonstares a useful aspect of CI: use in real-life situations to improve quality of witness statements.
• peel paragraph for evaluating (weakness):

  P- CI takes longet to complete than traditonal interview technique.

  E- kebbel & wagstaff found that many police officers didn't use CI technique in less serious crimes as they didn't have the time to carry out that type of interview. police often used strategies to deliberately limit an eyewitness report to minimum amount of info deemed necessary by officer.

  E- therefore, whilst CI may produce a vast amount of info, may not always be practical or helpful in terms of alllowing the police to efficiently investigate incidents, esp those seen as less serious.

  L- therefore, use of CI hasn't been widespread as forces don't have the time to practice technique, limiting its use.