Cards (9)

  • Support for the effectiveness of the CI One strength of the Cognitive Interview (CI) is its demonstrated effectiveness in improving eyewitness recall. For instance, a meta-analysis conducted by Kohnken et al. (1999) reviewed 55 studies comparing the Cognitive Interview (CI) and Enhanced Cognitive Interview (ECI) with standard police interviews. The results showed that the CI led to an average 41% increase in the accuracy of recall compared to the standard interview technique. This finding highlights the effectiveness of the CI in aiding witnesses to access information that may be stored in memory but not immediately accessible. The CI’s emphasis on techniques such as context reinstatement, open-ended questioning, and reducing anxiety contributes to this improved recall, making it a valuable tool in forensic investigations.
  • COUNTERPOINT While the Cognitive Interview (CI) and Enhanced Cognitive Interview (ECI) are designed to enhance the quantity of correct recall without compromising the quality of the information, some research raises concerns about the trade-off between quantity and accuracy. For example, Kohnken et al. (1997) found that while the CI and ECI increased the amount of information recalled, they also led to an increase in the amount of inaccurate or incorrect information. Specifically, the ECI resulted in 61% more incorrect details being recalled than the standard CI. This suggests that while the CI and ECI techniques help witnesses recall more information, there is a risk of sacrificing accuracy in the process.
  • Therefore, while these techniques enhance the volume of details provided by eyewitnesses, they may also lead to a greater amount of unreliable or false information being included in the testimony. This raises important concerns about the potential trade-off between the quantity of recall and the quality or accuracy of the eyewitness testimony (EWT).
  • The CI is time consuming A limitation of the Cognitive Interview (CI) is that it may not be practical for police officers to use due to the time and training required. The CI involves building rapport with witnesses and allowing them to relax, which takes more time than the standard police interview. Additionally, the CI requires specialized training for officers, but many police forces lack the resources to provide in-depth training. For example, Kebbell and Wagstaff (1997) found that many officers receive only a few hours of training, which may be insufficient for effective use of the CI.
  • This suggests that while the CI can be highly effective, it may not be a realistic method for police officers to implement regularly. Given time and resource constraints, it might be more feasible for officers to focus on just a few key elements of the CI, such as open-ended questioning and establishing rapport, rather than using the full method.
  • Some key elements may be More useful One limitation of the Cognitive Interview (CI) is that not all its elements are equally effective or useful. Milne and Bull (2002) found that while each of the four techniques in the CI (such as "report everything" and "reinstate the context") produced more information than the Standard Interview (SI), certain combinations were more effective than others. Specifically, they discovered that using the combination of "report everything" and "reinstate the context" led to better recall than any other technique or combination of techniques.
  • This suggests that some aspects of the CI may be more useful than others, raising questions about the overall effectiveness of the full CI method. It also casts doubt on the credibility of the CI as a whole, as it implies that not all elements contribute equally to improving eyewitness recall.
  • Individual differences The Cognitive Interview (CI) may be particularly useful when interviewing older witnesses. Negative stereotypes about age-related memory decline can make older adults more cautious about reporting information, potentially leading to incomplete recall. However, the CI encourages witnesses to report all details, no matter how insignificant they may seem, which can help counteract this hesitancy. Mello and Fisher (1996) compared the memory recall of older adults (mean age 72) and younger adults (mean age 22) after watching a filmed crime, using either the CI or Standard Interview (SI). They found that the CI produced more information for both older and younger participants compared to the SI. This suggests that the CI is suitable for people of all ages, as it helps overcome the reluctance to provide details, particularly among older witnesses, and enhances memory recall for everyone involved.
  • Geiselman (1999) argued that the Cognitive Interview (CI) works less effectively for children under the age of 6. One reason for this is that young children often find it difficult to understand complex instructions, such as “recreate your internal state.” Additionally, children may be less articulate, requiring more prompts and guidance from the interviewer to express their memories. As a result, the CI may not be appropriate for all age groups, particularly very young children who may struggle with the techniques used in the interview. This limitation suggests that the CI may need to be adapted or supplemented with alternative methods when interviewing younger witnesses.