Cognitive Interviews to Improve Accuracy of EWT Flashcards
(10 cards)
what is cognitive interviews
- Fisher and Gieselman (1992) looked at the research and argued that eyewitness testimony could be improved if the police used better techniques when interviewing eyewitnesses
- They recommend that techniques should be based on psychological insights into how memory works
- The techniques have amalgamated to make something known as the Cognitive Interview, which indicated its foundation in cognitive psychology
what makes something a cognitive interview
1) Recall / report everything – this is where the interviewer encourages the witness to report all the details of the event, even the details which may seem unimportant
Witnesses are encouraged to include every detail of the event, even though 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 important memories
2) Context reinstatement – this is where the interviewer encourages the witness to mentally recreate an image of the situation, including the details of the environment, such as weather, time, etc
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 (such as whether they were happy or bored). This related to context-dependent forgetting
3) Reverse order – this is where the witness is asked to recall the event in a different chronological order e.g. from the end to the beginning
Events should be recalled in a different order from the original sequence, for example, from the final point back to the beginning, or from the middle to the beginning. This is done to prevent people reporting their expectations of how the events must have happened rather than reporting the actual events. It also prevents dishonesty (it’s harder for people to produce an untruthful account if they have to reverse it)
4) Change perspective – this is where the witness is asked to mentally recreate the situation from a different point of view
Witnesses should recall the incident from other people’s perspective. For example, how it would have appeared to other witnesses or to the perpetrator. This is again done to disrupt the effect of expectations and also the effect of schema on recall. The schema you have for a particular setting (such as going into a shop) generate expectations of what would have happened and it is the schema that is recalled rather than what actually happened
what is the acronym for the 4 cognitive interview traits
PROD
Perspective of someone else,
Recreate the context of the incident,
Order it differently,
Detail, detail, detail
steps for enhanced cognitive interviews
- Reduce their anxiety
- Know when to make eye contact and take away (balance between holding eye-contact and knowing when to look away)
- Minimise distractions (now they don’t ask on the street but take them into a room and ask)
- Speak slowly
- Open-ended questions (don’t ask questions that are limited with a yes or no outcome
Kohnken meta-analysis
A meta-analysis by Kohnken (1999) combined data from 53 studies and found that the enhanced CI consistently provided more accurate information than the standard police interview (an increase of 31% accuracy in the CI compared to the SI)
AO3 (1) cognitive interviews
P: One limitation of the Cognitive Interview (CI) is that it takes considerably more time than a standard police interview.
E: For example, it requires more time to establish rapport with witnesses and allow them to fully recall events.
E: This is a weakness because in real police work, officers often have limited time and resources, making it difficult to implement the CI fully.
C: However, despite this, some police forces prefer to use deliberate strategies to limit eyewitness reports to only the minimum necessary information, showing that the CI’s full approach might not always be practical or necessary.
Despite this, the CI’s ability to produce significantly more correct information (a 31% increase according to Kohnen, 1999) supports its overall effectiveness despite practical challenges.
AO3 (2) cognitive interviews
P: One strength of the CI is that individual elements of the interview can improve recall better than the standard police interview.
E: Milne and Bull (2002) found that each element of the CI produced better recall compared to standard methods, and that combining ‘report everything’ and ‘context reinstatement’ was particularly effective.
E: This supports the idea that the CI is flexible and can be tailored to maximize recall based on specific techniques.
C: However, the CI requires specialist training, which many police forces struggle to provide due to limited time and resources (Kabbel and Wagstaff, 1996).
Despite this, even partial use of CI techniques can improve eyewitness recall, indicating the method’s value even if full training is not always possible.
AO3 (3) cognitive interviews
P: A limitation of the enhanced CI is that while it increases correct recall, it also increases the amount of incorrect information reported.
E: Kohken et al. (1999) found an 81% increase in correct information but also a 61% increase in false positives compared to standard interviews.
E: This suggests that while the CI can improve the amount of information recalled, it may reduce the overall accuracy due to more errors.
C: However, some argue that the increased volume of information still benefits investigations, as police can later verify details through other evidence.
Despite this, the potential for increased errors means that caution is needed when interpreting eyewitness testimony obtained through the CI.
strengths of cognitive interviews
supporting evidence - Kohnken et al
reliability of research - findings are consistent with both Kohnken and Geiselman
limitations of cognitive interviews
economic impact of cog interviews - takes longer and requires more training than standard interview
