Fisher and Geiselmann 1989 Flashcards
Aim
To test the Cognitive Interview (CI) in the field.
Participants
Sixteen detectives from the Robbery
Division of Dade County Florida.
All were experienced with a minimum of
five years with the division.
Procedure
In the first phase of the experiment, detectives
were asked to record a selection of their
interviews using the standard interview
techniques they normally used.
The detectives were then divided into two
groups with one being trained on CI techniques.
Training was over four, 60 minute sessions.
Seven detectives completed the programme and
were used in the results which follow.
Over the next seven months more
interviews were recorded by the two
groups.
The post training interviews were analysed
by a team at the University of California
who were blind to the conditions (trained
or untrained in CI).
Results
The seven trained detectives elicited 47% more
information after training and 63% more
information than the untrained detectives.
In this field study, accuracy had to be
established by corroboration with another
source.
In 24 cases with corroborating evidence (sixteen
by pre-trained detectives and eight by post-
trained detectives) 94% of statements were
corroborated.
The time taken to interview witnesses was not
significantly different but CIs do take longer.
Conclusion
These results showed that training of cognitive interviewing techniques increases accuracy of responses from witnesses. Due to the training only covering 4 hours, it could also be suggested that its an easy way to increase accuracy.
Strengths
High ecological validity - They use real detectives solving real cases
Blind tests lowers SDB and DC
Cross checked results with other evidence
Useful
Weaknesses
All CI does is encourage detectives to work in a more structured, reliable way. Does not lead to greater recall, just witnesses are questioned in a more structured manner.
Hawthorne effect - detectives morale boosted
May not be able to generalise - Snatching a purse differs to murders
