Improving EWT Accuracy: Cognitive Interview

• Define 'cognitive interview' (CI)

  Fisher and Geiselman (1992) proposed a method of interviewing eyewitnesses to help them retrieve more accurate memories. It implements 4 main techniques - report everything, reinstate the context, reverse the order and change perspective.
• 1. Report everything


  - Eyewitnesses are encouraged to include every single detail of an event, no matter how small.

  - Seemingly trivial details may be important, and can also trigger other crucial memories.
• 2. Reinstate the context


  - The witnesses should return to the original crime scene in their mind and imagine the environment and their emotions.

  - This is related to state-dependent and context-dependent forgetting.
• 3. Reverse the order

  - Events should be recalled in an unchronological order to prevent witnesses from reporting their expectations of how the event must've panned out rather than what actually happened.

  - It also prevents dishonesty.
• 4. Change the perspective

  - Witnesses should recall the event from different perspectives.

  - This is done to also disrupt the effect of expectation and schemas on recall.

  - The schema you have for a specific setting create expectations of what would happen, and the schema is recalled rather than the actual events.
• The enhanced cognitive interview (ECI)

  - Fisher et al. (1987) developed additional elements to the CI to focus on social dynamics and interaction.

  - For example, the interviewer needs to know when to maintain eye contact and when to stop.

  - The ECI contains ideas of reducing eyewitness anxiety, minimising distractions and getting the witness to speak slowly and asking open-ended questions.
• Evaluating cognitive interview: Support for the effectiveness of CI (with counterpoint)


  - A strength of CI is that it is proven to work.

  - Kohnken et al. (1999) conducted a meta-analysis and combined data from 55 studies comparing CI and ECI with the standard police interview. The CI gave a 41% increase in accurate recall compared to the standard interview.

  - Only 4 studies showed no difference/

  - This suggests that CI is an effective technique in helping witnesses to recall information that is available in memory, but not immediately accessible.

  
  

  - Counterpoint: Kohnken et al. (1999) also found an increase in the inaccurate information given by participants.

  - This occurred particularly with the ECI, which produced more inaccurate details than CI.

  - Cognitive interviews may sacrifice quality of EWT in favour of quantity.

  - This means police officers should treat eyewitness evidence from CIs and ECIs with caution.
• Evaluating cognitive interview: Some elements may be more useful


  - A limitation of the original CI is that not all of its elements are equally effective and/or useful.

  - Milne and Bull (2002) found that each of the four techniques used alone produced more information than a standard police interview.

  - However, they also found that a combination of reinstating the context and reporting everything produced better recall than any other element or combination of elements.

  - This casts some doubt on the credibility of cognitive interview as a whole.
• Evaluating cognitive interview: Time-consuming

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

  - For example, more time is needed to establish a rapport and allow the eyewitness to relax.

  - CI also requires specialist training, and many forces do not have the resources to provide no more than a few hours - Kebbell and Wagstaff (1997).

  - This suggests that the complete CI is not a realistic method for police officers to use, and it may just be better to focus on a few of the elements.
• Evaluating cognitive interview: Variations of the CI

  - Police forces have taken a random approach to the various techniques of CI, i.e. they have used different combinations of elements.

  - This makes it difficult to compare the effectiveness of different approaches in research studies.

  - Conversely, this approach is very flexible as it means that individuals can develop their own approach according to what works best for them.