Improving The Accuracy Of EWT: The Cognitive Interview Flashcards
(12 cards)
What did Fisher and Geiselman (1992) argue about EWT?
Fisher and Geiselman (1992) argued that the eyewitness testimony 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.
What are the 4 techniques used in the cognitive interview?
- Report everything
- Reinstate the context
- Reverse the order
- Change perspective
Describe report everything
witnesses are encouraged to say everything they can remember about the event, even if it seems irrelevant or the witness is not confident about it.
This is used as seemingly trivial details may act as retrieval cues for other important memories.
Describe reinstate the context
witness returns to the original crime scene ‘in their mind’and imagine the environment and their emotions.
This is used to provide context and state dependent retrieval cues for other important memories.
Describe reverse the order
Events should be recorded in the reverse chronological order to the original sequence (e.g. from the end back to the beginning).
This is used to disrupt the effect of expectations and schema on recall. The schema you have for a setting generate expectations of what would’ve happened rather than what actually did happen. It also prevents dishonesty.
Describe 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 expectations and schema on recall. The schema you have for a setting generate expectations of what would’ve happened and it is a schema that is recalled rather than what actually happened.
Describe the enhanced cognitive interview
The four techniques are used as well as additional elements.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 also includes ideas such as reducing eyewitness anxiety, minimising distractions, getting the witness to speak slowly and asking open-ended questions.
EVALUATION POINT 1:
(-) Time consuming
Police may be reluctant to use the CI because it takes much more time that the standard police interview. For example, more time is needed to establish rapport with the witness and allow them to relax.
The CI also requires special training which also takes several hours and Kebbell and Wagstaff (1996) found that many forces have not been able to provide more than a few hours.
These mean that it is unlikely that the full and ‘correct’ version ( all techniques) of the CI is actually used, which may explain why police have not been that impressed by it and would also mean the EWTmah not be as accurate as it could be.
EVALUATION POINT 2:
(+) Evidence supporting effectiveness
Milne and Bull (2002) found that each individual element used singly produced more information than the standard police interview. This suggests that when these four elements are combined in the CI it should improve the validity of EWT. This in turn increases the credibility of the CI amongst those who use it e.g. police officers.
Kohnken et al. (1999) conducted a meta-analysis of data from 50 studies. They found that the enhanced CI consistently provided more correct information than the standard interview used by police.
These reliable studies suggests that the CI produces more accurate EWT and that there are real practical benefits to the police of using the CI or the enhanced CI. If EWT is more accurate it gives the police a greater chance of catching and charging criminals, which is beneficial to society as a whole. (police officers more likely to use it)
EVALUATION POINT 3:
(+/-) Some elements produce better recall than others
Milne and Bull (2002) also found that using a combination of report everything and context reinstatement produced better recall than any of the other combination. This suggests that these two elements are (+) more useful than all four combined in the CI. (-) This suggests that reverse recall and change the perspective may be less effective and may actually have a negative effect on the accuracy of EWT when combined in the CI.
EVALUATION POINT 4:
(-) Variable use of the CI
Studies of the effectiveness of the CI inevitably use slightly different CI techniques or use the enhanced CI. The same is true in real life where police forces evolve their own methods. The methods are not consistent meaning the results from each study cannot be generalised to other studies. This makes the research less useful as we can’t be sure of the strength of the findings.
EVALUATION POINT 5:
(-) CI creates an increase in inaccurate information
The techniques of the CI have also been found to increase the recall of incorrect information. Kohnken et al. (1999) found an 81% increase of correct information but also a 61% increase of incorrect information (false positives) when the enhanced CI was compared to a standard interview. As the CI may also increase the account of wrong information recalled, EWT may be less accurate and thus gives the police a lesser chance of catching and charging criminals.
