The Cognitive Interview

• Report Everything -> Witnesses encouraged to report every single detail of event, even though it may seem irrelevant. It may highlight something that has been overlooked and such details may trigger other important memories.
• Reinstate The Context -> Witnesses should reinstate the environmental and personal context of the incident, weather, emotions, hear, see and smell, based on the principle of retrieval failure - these cues trigger recall which may have been inaccessible without cues.
• Reverse The Order -> Reverse the order, e.g. from the final point back to the beginning. It is done to prevent people from reporting expectations of how the event must have happened due to the use of schema and prevents dishonesty (it is harder to lie if you have to reverse it).
• Change The Perspective -> Witnesses should recall the incident from different perspectives, e.g. how it would've appeared to other witnesses or the perpetrator. This disrupts the effect of expectations and schema on recall.
• Features of the ECI focus on social interaction in order to facilitate recall: rapport building used to help the witness feel more comfortable and reduce anxiety
• The interviewer is encouraged to ask open-ended questions to reduce the likelihood of leading questions.
• The cognitive interview, developed by Fisher in 1984, aims to improve the accuracy of eyewitness testimony by using techniques like reinstating the context, reporting everything, changing perspective, and changing the order
• Reinstating the context involves witnesses recreating the physical and psychological environment of the original incident, focusing on details like weather, sights, sounds, smells, and emotions
• Reporting everything encourages witnesses to provide a detailed step-by-step account of the event without editing any details, even if they seem insignificant
• Changing perspective requires witnesses to recall the event from multiple viewpoints, such as describing it from the perspective of another witness or the victim
• Changing the order involves the witness recounting events in a different sequence, like from end to beginning or starting in the middle and moving to the end
• The cognitive interview techniques are based on psychological principles to enhance memory recall, aiming to provide cues through contextual and emotional cues
• Schema theory explains how cognitive frameworks influence memory, as schemas can fill in memory gaps with expectations, potentially leading to inaccuracies in eyewitness testimony
• The cognitive interview, particularly the change of perspective and reverse the order elements, aims to prevent reporting of expectations and focus on actual events to improve accuracy
• The enhanced cognitive interview focuses on social dynamics to make witnesses feel calm and relaxed, including aspects like eye contact, anxiety reduction, and minimizing distractions
• In exam questions, students may be asked to outline the cognitive interview, identify and explain techniques, write evaluation points, or answer multiple-choice questions related to the topic
• Evaluation points for the cognitive interview include strengths like research support showing increased accurate information but also limitations such as the need for extensive time and training for implementation
• The cognitive interview (CI) is a method of interviewing eyewitnesses to help them retrieve more accurate memories. It uses four main techniques, all based on evidence-based psychological knowledge of the human memory: report everything, reinstate the context, reverse the order and change perspective.
• Fisher and Geiselman (1992) argued that EWT could be improved if the police used better techniques when interviewing witnesses. They recommended that such techniques should be based on psychological insights into how memory works, and called these techniques collectively the cognitive interview (CI) to indicate its foundation in cognitive psychology.
• 𝗥𝗘𝗣𝗢𝗥𝗧 𝗘𝗩𝗘𝗥𝗬𝗧𝗛𝗜𝗡𝗚:

  Witnesses are encouraged to include every single detail of the event, even if it may seem irrelevant or the witness doesn't feel confident about it. Seemingly trivial details may be important and, moreover, they may trigger other memories.
• 𝗥𝗘𝗜𝗡𝗦𝗧𝗔𝗧𝗘 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗖𝗢𝗡𝗧𝗘𝗫𝗧:

  The witnesses should return to the original crime scene 'in their mind' and imagine the environment (such as what the weather was like, and what they could see) and their emotions. This is related to context-dependent forgetting discussed in the theory of retrieval failure due to a lack of cues.
• 𝗖𝗛𝗔𝗡𝗚𝗘 𝗣𝗘𝗥𝗦𝗣𝗘𝗖𝗧𝗜𝗩𝗘:

  Witnesses should recall the incident from other people's perspectives. For example, how it would have appeared to other witnesses or to the perpetrator. This is done to disrupt the effect of expectations and also the effect of schema on recall. The schema you have for a particular setting generate expectations of what would have happened and it is the schema that is recalled rather than what actually happened.
• 𝗥𝗘𝗩𝗘𝗥𝗦𝗘 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗢𝗥𝗗𝗘𝗥:

  Events should be recalled in a different order than the original sequence, for example, from the final point back to the beginning. This is done to prevent people from reporting their expectations of how the event must have happened rather than reporting the actual events. It also prevents dishonesty (it is harder to produce an untruthful account if you have to reverse it).
• 𝙏𝙀𝘾𝙃𝙉𝙄𝙌𝙐𝙀𝙎:

  1. report everything
  2. reinstate the context
  3. reverse the order
  4. change perspective
• 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗘𝗡𝗛𝗔𝗡𝗖𝗘𝗗 𝗖𝗢𝗚𝗡𝗜𝗧𝗜𝗩𝗘 𝗜𝗡𝗧𝗘𝗥𝗩𝗜𝗘𝗪:

  Fisher et al. (1987) developed some additional elements of the CI to focus on the social dynamics of the interaction. For example, the interviewer needs to know when to establish eye contact and when to relinquish it. The enhanced CI (ECI) also includes ideas such as reducing eyewitness anxiety, minimising distractions, getting the witness to speak slowly, and asking open-ended questions.
• 𝙀𝙑𝘼𝙇𝙐𝘼𝙏𝙄𝙊𝙉𝙎:

  1. support for effectiveness (Kohnken)
  2. counterpoint to support (Kohnken)
  3. some elements more useful (Milne and Bull)
  4. time-consuming (Kebbel and Wagstaff)
  5. variations
• 𝟭. 𝗦𝗨𝗣𝗣𝗢𝗥𝗧 𝗙𝗢𝗥 𝗘𝗙𝗙𝗘𝗖𝗧𝗜𝗩𝗘𝗡𝗘𝗦𝗦:

  One strength of the CI is evidence that it works.

  A meta-analysis by Kohnken et al. (1999) combined data from 55 studies comparing the CI (/ECI) with the standard police interview. The CI gave an average 41% increase in accurate information compared with the standard interview. Only four studies showed no difference between the two types.

  This shows that the CI is an effective technique in helping witnesses to recall information that is stored in memory (available) but not immediately accessible.
• 𝟮. 𝗖𝗢𝗨𝗡𝗧𝗘𝗥𝗣𝗢𝗜𝗡𝗧 𝗧𝗢 𝗦𝗨𝗣𝗣𝗢𝗥𝗧:

  Kohnken et al. also found an increase in the amount of inaccurate information recalled by participants. This was a particular issue in the ECI, which produced more incorrect details than the CI. Cognitive interviews may sacrifice the quality of EWT (i.e. accuracy) in favour of quantity (amount of details).

  This means that police officers should treat eyewitness evidence from CIs/ECIs with caution.
• 𝟯. 𝗦𝗢𝗠𝗘 𝗘𝗟𝗘𝗠𝗘𝗡𝗧𝗦 𝗠𝗢𝗥𝗘 𝗨𝗦𝗘𝗙𝗨𝗟:

  One limitation of the original CI is that not all of its elements are equally effective or useful.

  Milne and Bull (2002) found that each of the four techniques used alone produced more information than the standard police interview. But they also found that using a combination of report everything and reinstate the context produced better recall than any of the other elements or combination of them. This confirms that some elements of the CI are more useful than others.

  This casts some doubt on the overall credibility of the CI.
• 𝟰. 𝗧𝗜𝗠𝗘-𝗖𝗢𝗡𝗦𝗨𝗠𝗜𝗡𝗚:

  Another limitation is that police officers may be reluctant to use the CI because it takes more time and training than the standard police interview.

  More time is needed to establish rapport with a witness and allow them to relax. The CI also requires special training and many forces do not have the resources to provide more than a few hours (Kebbell and Wagstaff).

  This suggests that the complete CI as it exists is not a realistic method for police officers to use and it might be better to focus on just a few key elements (e.g. Milne and Bull's research).
• 𝟱. 𝗩𝗔𝗥𝗜𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡𝗦 𝗢𝗙 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗖𝗜:

  Police forces have taken a 'pick and mix' approach to the various techniques used in the CI. This means it is hard to compare the effectiveness of different approaches in research studies.

  On the other hand, this approach is more flexible and means that force can develop their own approach/can adapt the method to individual cases.

  Therefore, on balance, the variation in the use of the CI is a strength because it can be adapted to different situations. This increases its credibility in the eyes of police officers and witnesses themselves.
• An important technique of the cognitive interview is getting the witness to think themselves back into the situation they witnessed.
• Establishing rapport with the witness and reducing their anxiety are features of the enhanced cognitive interview.
• Different police forces appear to implement the cognitive interview in different ways ('pick and mix' approach).
• Köhnken et al. found that the enhanced CI produced more accurate information than the standard police interview.
• Milne and Bull -> Looked at each individual element of the cognitive interview.
• Köhnken et al. -> Carried out a meta-analysis of cognitive interview effectiveness studies.
• Kebbell and Wagstaff -> Found that most police forces have provided only a few hours training.
• Fisher et al. -> Adapted the cognitive interview to create the enhanced cognitive interview.
• Fisher and Geiselman -> First to apply psychological principles to police interviewing.