Memory: Cognitive Interview
The Cognitive Interview (CI) was devised by psychologists in order to eliminate the effects of misleading questions and misleading information in traditional police techniques. The CI was first devised by Fisher and Geiselman (1992). They argued that Eyewitness Testimony (EWT) could be improved if better techniques were used when interviewing witnesses. They recommended that the questions that the Police forces ask the witnesses should be based on psychological insights into how memory works.
The order in which police forces apply the CI method:
Report everything – Witnesses are encouraged to describe every detail that they can remember about the events that unfolded, even things that the witness is unconfident about a point or finds it irrelevant. The lesser details may trigger other, more detailed memories about the events.
Reinstate the context – Try and get the witness to return to the scene of the crime through their imagination, they should try to describe things like the environment and their feelings at the time. This method relates to context-dependant forgetting.
Reverse the order – Get the witness to recall the events in a different chronological order, such as reverse or most important details first. This prevents the witness from reporting their assumptions of how the events take place. It also prevents dishonesty as it will be harder to make things up if the events are in reverse.
Change perspective – try to get the witness to recall the events from another person’s perspective. For instance, the witness could recall the events from the view of another witness or as the perpetrator.
A key study of the Cognitive interview was the research found by Milne and Bull (2002) found that each aspect of the CI was equally important. They used each technique singly and found that they produced more information from the participants than the standard interview. However, Milne and Bull found that using a combination of context reinstatement and report everything that produced better recall than any of the other conditions. Another key study that supports the cognitive interview is the research carried out by Geiselman. He, along with his team performed a standard interview technique on 51 volunteer participants from a wide demographic background. Participants watched two films of violent crimes and 48 hours later were interviewed by trained police officers using either a standard interview or a cognitive interview. The results showed a significant increase in the number of correct items recalled using the cognitive interview. However the number of mistakes the witnesses made remained the same.
However, police forces may be reluctant to use this technique because it takes a lot more time than the standard police interview. An example of this would be the time it takes for rapport to be established with the witness and for them to relax. The person conducting the cognitive interview also needs special training and so many forces are unable to apply this method. This could also be the reason why many forces are not impressed with the cognitive interview as they are not using it to its full extent. This neglects the purpose of the interview, as it does not help with consistency of the eyewitness account. Overall, the cognitive interview could possibly improve on the standard interview if used correctly.
