Cognitive interview

• Ronald Fisher and Edward Geiselman 1992 argued that eyewitness testimony could be improved by police if they used better techniques when interviewing witnesses such as cognitive interview
• Standard Police Interview • No real structure (interviewer does most of the talking). • The sequencing of questions aren't in chronological order which often didn’t match the witnesses’ on image of events. • Predetermined questions, closed and direct • Police questiones would also often interrupt the witnesses and not allowing them to expand on their answers • Questions may be leading/forced choice. • Intimidating to the interviewee.
• Cognitive Interview

  This is a questioning technique used by the police when interviewing witnesses to a crime, enhance the retrieval of information that encourages them to recreate the original context in order to increase the accessibility of stored information.
• Techniques Used: 1. Report everything Witnesses are encouraged to include every single detail of the event, even though it may seem irrelevant or the witness doesn't feel confident about it. No matter how minor it may seem, his could trigger additional memories about the event.
• 2. Reinstate the context The witness should return to the original crime scene 'in their mind' and imagine the environment (such as what the weather was like, what they could see) and their emotions.
• Reverse order Events should be recalled in a different order from the original sequence, for example, from final point back to the beginning, or from the middle to the beginning. See full size image This is done to prevent people reporting their expectation of how the event must have happened rather than reporting the actual events. It also prevents dishonesty (its harder for people to produce an untruthful account if they have to reverse it).
• 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 attacker. This again reduces the chance of expectations (schema) affecting what is recalled.
• The Enhanced Cognitive Interview

  Fisher et al (1992) identified additional features to focus on the social dynamics of the interaction: Relax and speak slowly, reduce eyewitness anxiety, The interviewer needs to know when to establish eye contact Offer comments to clarify. Minimise distractions in the room. The interviewer should actively listen. The interviewer should get the witness speak slowly and asking open-ended questions. The interviewer should adapt their language to suit the witness. The interviewer should avoid any judgemental comments.
• Support for the effectiveness of the CI One strength of the cognitive interview is evidence that it works. For example, a meta-analysis by Kohnken et al (1999) combined data from 55 studies comparing the Cognitive interview and Enhanced Cognitive interview with the standard police interview. The CI gave an average 41% increase in accuracy compared within the Standard interview. This shows that the CI is an effective techniques in helping witnesses to recall information that is stored in memory (available) but not immediately accessible.
• What is one strength of the cognitive interview (CI)?


  Evidence that it works
• What did the meta-analysis by Kohnken et al (1999) compare?


  It compared the CI and ECI with the standard police interview
• What was the average increase in accuracy of the CI compared to the standard interview (SI)?


  41%
• What does the CI help witnesses do?


  Recall information that is stored in memory but not immediately accessible
• What is the main goal of the CI/ECI?


  • Enhance the quantity of correct recall
  • Maintain the quality of the information
• What did Kohnken et al (1997) find regarding the accuracy of information recalled using the CI/ECI?


  There was an increase in the amount of inaccurate information recalled
• Which interview method procured more incorrect details, the CI or the ECI?


  The ECI procured 61% more incorrect details than the CI
• What caution should police officers take regarding eyewitness evidence from CIs/ECIs?


  • Treat eyewitness evidence with caution
  • Be aware of the potential for inaccuracies
• The CI is time consuming A limitation is that police officers may be reluctant to use the CI because it takes more time and training than the standard police interview. For example, 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 1997). This suggests that the CI is not a realistic method for police officers to use and it might be better to focus on just a few key elements
• Some key elements may be more useful One limitation of the CI is that not all 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 SI. They found that using a combination of report everything and reinstate the context produced better recall than any other elements or combination of them. Therefore, we can argue that some aspects of the CI are more useful than others. This casts some doubt on the credibility of the overall cognitive interview.
• What is the main focus of the Cognitive Interview (CI) when interviewing older witnesses?


  The CI emphasizes reporting any detail regardless of its perceived insignificance.
• Why might older witnesses be overly cautious about reporting information?

  Negative stereotypes about older adults' memories declining with age can cause caution.
• What were the findings of Mello and Fisher (1996) regarding the effectiveness of CI and SI on different age groups?


  • Older adults (mean age 72) and younger adults (mean age 22) were compared.
  • The CI produced more information for both older and younger participants.
  • Suggests that cognitive interviews are suitable for all ages.
• What does CI stand for in the context of interviewing witnesses?


  Cognitive Interview
• What is the significance of the CI's approach to detail reporting?


  It helps counteract negative stereotypes and encourages comprehensive information sharing.
• How might the findings of Mello and Fisher (1996) influence the use of CI in legal settings?


  It supports the use of CI for witnesses of all ages to gather more information.
• How does the CI differ from traditional interviewing methods in terms of detail reporting?


  The CI encourages reporting all details, while traditional methods may prioritize significant information only.
• Geiselman (1999) argued that CI worked less well for children under age of 6. Difficult to understand instructions (e.g. recreate internal state). Also less articulate so may need more prompts. Therefore, cognitive interview may not be appropriate for all ag