THE COGNITIVE INTERVIEW
THE STANDARD INTERVIEW
The Standard Interview, often used in law enforcement, tends to be structured and direct. This approach typically involves:
A SEQUENTIAL APPROACH: Witnesses are usually asked to recount their memory of the event in a linear, chronological order.
SPECIFIC QUESTIONING: The interviewer may use closed questions to confirm specific details, limiting the scope of the witness's response.
LESS EMPHASIS ON PSYCHOLOGICAL PRINCIPLES: The standard interview may not systematically employ techniques to optimise memory recall, such as context reinstatement or varied recall.
The Standard interview can effectively collect factual information quickly, but it may not be as conducive to recalling complex or nuanced details as the ECI. It is more susceptible to introducing errors or omissions in the witness's account, partly due to the lack of techniques that facilitate deep memory retrieval.
WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE STANDARD INTERVIEW?
The standard interview has several limitations, particularly concerning the accuracy and completeness of eyewitness testimony.
Key issues include:
LEADING QUESTIONS: Standard interviews may use more closed, leading questions, which can inadvertently suggest answers or influence the witness's memory.
LACK OF RAPPORT: They often lack the establishment of rapport between the interviewer and the witness, which can affect the witness's comfort level and willingness to disclose information.
LINEAR RECALL: Standard interviews typically ask witnesses to recall events in a linear, chronological order, which may not align with how memories are stored and retrieved.
MEMORY CONTAMINATION: The approach can increase the risk of memory contamination by introducing misinformation or reinforcing inaccurate details.
STRESS AND ANXIETY: The formal, often rigid nature of standard interviews can heighten a witness's stress and anxiety levels, negatively impacting their ability to recall events accurately.
ORIGIN OF THE COGNITIVE INTERVIEW
The Cognitive Interview (CI) was developed as a response to these limitations to improve the accuracy and completeness of eyewitness testimony. It originated from the work of psychologists Ronald Fisher and Edward Geiselman in the 1980s. Their development of the CI was influenced by a broad array of research in cognitive psychology, focusing on how memory works and how it can be more effectively accessed.
THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS OF THE COGNITIVE INTERVIEW
While general principles of cognitive psychology informed Fisher and Geiselman's development of the CI, it specifically drew on the following key areas and researchers:
FREDERIC BARTLETT'S WORK ON RECONSTRUCTIVE MEMORY: Bartlett's theory suggests that memory is not a passive retrieval of facts but is actively reconstructed. This idea influenced the CI's focus on helping witnesses reconstruct the context and details of an event.
Elizabeth Loftus's RESEARCH ON EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY AND MEMORY DISTORTION: Loftus's work demonstrated how easily memory can be influenced by misleading information and post-event details. Her research underscored the need for careful questioning that doesn't lead or misinform the witness.
JOHN BRANSFORD AND MARCIA JOHNSON'S WORK ON CONTEXTUAL PREREQUISITES FOR UNDERSTANDING: Their research on comprehension and memory formation highlighted the importance of context in memory retrieval, influencing the CI's technique of context reinstatement.
Fisher and Geiselman synthesized these insights into a structured approach that could be practically applied in interviews with eyewitnesses, leading to the creation of the Cognitive Interview as it's known today. This approach has been refined and expanded over the years, including the development of the Enhanced Cognitive Interview, which incorporates additional techniques for building rapport and managing the emotional state of the witness.
ORIGINAL COGNITIVE INTERVIEW
CONTEXT REINSTATEMENT: Encourage witnesses to reconstruct the physical and social context of the incident mentally.
REPORT EVERYTHING: Witnesses are prompted to recall and report all event details, regardless of perceived importance.
RECALL FROM DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES: Witnesses are asked to describe the event from multiple viewpoints.
RECALL IN REVERSE ORDER: Encourage witnesses to describe the events in a different chronological order than what occurred.
The Cognitive Interview (CI) method is a sophisticated approach rooted in cognitive psychology aimed at enhancing the accuracy and reliability of eyewitness testimony. This technique is grounded in a deep understanding of how memory works, drawing on specific research findings related to memory recall, context-dependent memory, and the reconstructive nature of memory. Let's briefly explore how these concepts support the CI's components:
MEMORY RECALL
REPORT EVERY DETAIL: The instruction to report every detail, no matter how trivial, is supported by research indicating that specific cues can facilitate the retrieval of additional, related memories. The act of recalling one detail may trigger the recall of another potentially critical piece of information (Tulving & Pearlstone, 1966
THE STANDARD INTERVIEW
ORIGIN OF THE COGNITIVE INTERVIEW
The Cognitive Interview (CI) was developed as a response to these limitations to improve the accuracy and completeness of eyewitness testimony. It originated from the work of psychologists Ronald Fisher and Edward Geiselman in the 1980s. Their development of the CI was influenced by a broad array of research in cognitive psychology, focusing on how memory works and how it can be more effectively accessed.
THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS OF THE COGNITIVE INTERVIEW
The CI did not originate directly from the work of any single researcher but rather was an innovative integration of various principles from cognitive psychology aimed at addressing the shortcomings of standard interview techniques. Fisher and Geiselman synthesised these insights into a structured approach that could be practically applied in eyewitness interviews. This led to the creation of the Cognitive Interview as it's known today. This approach has been refined and expanded over the years, including the development of the Enhanced Cognitive Interview, which incorporates additional techniques for building rapport and managing the emotional state of the witness.
Frederic Bartlett's Work on Reconstructive Memory: Bartlett's theory suggests that memory is not a passive retrieval of facts but is actively reconstructed. This idea influenced the CI's focus on helping witnesses reconstruct the context and details of an event.
Elizabeth Loftus's Research on Eyewitness Testimony and Memory Distortion: Loftus's work demonstrated how easily memory can be influenced by misleading information and post-event details. Her research underscored the need for careful questioning that doesn't lead or misinform the witness.
John Bransford and Marcia Johnson's Work on Contextual Prerequisites for Understanding: Their research on comprehension and memory formation highlighted the importance of context in memory retrieval, influencing the CI's technique of context reinstatement.
IMPROVING THE ACCURACY OF EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY
ORIGINAL COGNITIVE INTERVIEW
Context Reinstatement: Encourage witnesses to reconstruct the physical and social context of the incident mentally.
Report Everything: Witnesses are prompted to recall and report all event details, regardless of perceived importance.
Recall from Different Perspectives: Witnesses are asked to describe the event from multiple viewpoints.
Recall in Reverse Order: Encourage witnesses to describe the events in a different chronological order than what occurred.
The Cognitive Interview (CI) method is a sophisticated approach rooted in cognitive psychology aimed at enhancing the accuracy and reliability of eyewitness testimony. This technique is grounded in a deep understanding of how memory works, drawing on specific research findings related to memory recall, context-dependent memory, and the reconstructive nature of memory. Let's briefly explore how these concepts support the CI's components:
MEMORY RECALL
Report Every Detail: The instruction to report every detail, no matter how trivial it seems, is supported by research indicating that specific cues can facilitate the retrieval of additional, related memories. Recalling one detail may trigger the recall of another potentially critical piece of information (Tulving & Pearlstone, 1966).
CONTEXT-DEPENDENT MEMORY
Recreate the Context: The practice of mentally reconstructing the environment or psychological state at the time of the event is based on the encoding specificity principle. This principle suggests that memory is more easily recalled when the external context at the time of encoding matches the context at the time of retrieval (Tulving & Thomson, 1973). This technique helps trigger contextual cues that aid memory recall.
RECONSTRUCTIVE NATURE OF MEMORY
Recall the Event in Different Orders and Perspectives: The instructions to recall the event in different orders or perspectives aim to mitigate the influence of schemas—mental frameworks that shape our perceptions and memories. Since memory is not a perfect recording of events but rather a reconstructive process, these techniques help to reduce biases and errors introduced by our expectations and prior knowledge. By recalling events out of sequence or from another's viewpoint, witnesses may bypass their schemas, leading to more accurate recollections (Bartlett, 1932).
EVALUATION OF THE ORIGINAL COGNITIVE INTERVIEW
TRAINING AND PRACTICALITY
The interviewer's skill and training can also influence the effectiveness of various cognitive interview elements. Implementing more complex techniques, such as changing the order of recall or adopting different perspectives, demands a high level of expertise and can be time-consuming. As such, the practicality and feasibility of these elements can vary, potentially affecting their utility and the frequency with which they are employed in real-world settings.
Most police forces face significant challenges in fully implementing the Cognitive Interview (CI) technique due to various constraints. The primary issues revolve around the lack of time and resources for adequate training and the practical difficulties in integrating this method into the daily workload of police work. These constraints significantly impact the widespread adoption and effective use of the CI in several ways.
NOT ALL ELEMENTS OF THE COGNITIVE INTERVIEW ARE EQUAL. Some components of the original CI yielding are better than others. . Research into the efficacy of various cognitive interview techniques has shown that certain strategies have a more pronounced impact on enhancing recall accuracy and detail.
CONTEXT REINSTATEMENT
Context reinstatement, where witnesses are asked to reconstruct the physical and emotional environment of the incident mentally, is often highlighted as particularly effective. This technique leverages the encoding specificity principle, suggesting that recall is improved when memory retrieval matches the context during memory encoding. By vividly imagining the scene and their feelings at the time of the event, witnesses can access memories that might otherwise remain inaccessible.
REPORT EVERYTHING
Encouraging witnesses to report every detail, no matter how seemingly insignificant, has also been identified as a powerful aspect of the cognitive interview. This approach can lead to the retrieval of critical information that witnesses might not initially consider important. Freely recalling all details, without fear of being judged for relevancy, can trigger further memories and connections, enhancing the overall quality of the testimony.
CHALLENGES WITH ORDER AND PERSPECTIVE
On the other hand, techniques such as recalling events in different orders or from different perspectives, while theoretically beneficial in reducing schema-driven recall errors, may not always significantly enhance memory retrieval in practice. These techniques require witnesses to deviate from their natural recall processes, which can sometimes create confusion or lead to less coherent accounts of events.
THE ENHANCED COGNITIVE INTERVIEW (ECI)
The enhanced cognitive interview was developed in response to the limitations observed in the original Cognitive Interview (CI) technique. While the original CI offered significant improvements over standard interview methods, feedback from law enforcement and further psychological research indicated areas for enhancement, particularly concerning its applicability and effectiveness in real-world policing.
REASONS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ECI
Complexity and Time Consumption: The original CI was complex and time-consuming, making it challenging for police officers to use it effectively within the constraints of their duties.
Training Requirements: Effective use of the original CI required extensive training that was not always feasible within the resource constraints of many police departments.
Adaptability: The original CI needed greater flexibility to adapt to different types of witnesses and varying levels of witness cooperation.
ENHANCEMENTS IN THE ECI
The ECI was developed to address these limitations by incorporating additional elements that focused on the social dynamics of the interview process and further strategies to facilitate memory recall.
THE ENHANCED COGNITIVE INTERVIEW
The Enhanced Cognitive Interview is a further development of the original Cognitive Interview, designed to improve eyewitness memory recall while reducing errors. It incorporates a set of techniques based on psychological principles of memory and communication, including:
Open-Ended Questions: Use broad, open-ended questions to elicit detailed responses without leading the witness.
Minimise Distractions: Ensure the interview setting is free from distractions to aid concentration and memory recall.
Witness-Compatible Questioning: Adapt the questioning style to be compatible with the witness's cognitive and emotional state.
Pause Length: Allow for pauses and silence, giving witnesses time to think and elaborate on their memories.
Avoid Interruption: Witnesses can speak without interruption to encourage a more detailed and coherent narrative.
Building Rapport: Establishing a comfortable environment and trusting relationship between the interviewer and the witness reduces anxiety and encourages open communication.
Context Reinstatement: Encouraging witnesses to mentally recreate the scene and their emotional state during the incident to enhance memory recall.
Varied Recall: Asking witnesses to describe the event from multiple perspectives and in different orders to prevent schemas and expectations from influencing the recall.
Focused Retrieval: Using open-ended questions to facilitate detailed responses, avoiding leading questions that might introduce bias or misinformation.
These techniques aim to maximise recall accuracy by tapping into various memory retrieval cues and strategies, making the ECI particularly effective in obtaining detailed and reliable eyewitness accounts.
RESEARCH ON THE COGNITIVE INTERVIEW
Supporting Research
The cognitive interview has real-world applications, especially in law enforcement, where the police can use this to glean more information from witnesses that may prove crucial to solving crimes and reducing miscarriages of justice.
Köhnken et al.'s meta-analysis of 53 studies presents compelling evidence for the cognitive interview's efficacy, revealing a notable 34% increase in recall when compared to traditional interview methods. This significant enhancement underscores the cognitive interview's effectiveness, establishes validity, and highlights its practical implications, particularly within law enforcement. By enabling police to extract more detailed and accurate information from witnesses, the cognitive interview can play a crucial role in solving crimes more efficiently and reducing the incidence of miscarriages of justice. The findings from this meta-analysis thus advocate for the cognitive interview's broader adoption in investigative practices, emphasizing its potential to transform the quality of eyewitness testimony and its consequential impact on the justice system.
Geiselman et al. (1984): This foundational study introduced the cognitive interview and demonstrated its effectiveness over standard police interviewing techniques. Participants who were interviewed using the cognitive interview recalled more correct information with no significant increase in errors.
Memon, Meissner, and Fraser (2010): Their meta-analysis found that the cognitive interview consistently yielded more accurate memories than standard interviews. This study supports that techniques, including chronological recounting, can enhance recall.
Fisher and Geiselman (1992) Further developed the cognitive interview into what is sometimes referred to as the Enhanced Cognitive Interview, highlighting the importance of the chronological narrative structure in aiding memory recall.
Fisher et al. found supporting evidence for the cognitive interview in real-world studies when 16 police officers interviewed 47 people twice who were victims of crime themselves or witnesses. Seven officers were trained to use the cognitive interview, while 9 used standard interview methods and formed the control group. Results found the cognitive interview gained 47% more facts overall than the standard interview and concluded it was beneficial for improving EWT. This study used real police officers and real witnesses, meaning the study had high external validity to real-world applications. A possible weakness is that the control group of officers may have been demotivated due to not receiving training, which may have negatively affected their motivation levels and performance in the standard interview.
Milne and Bull (2002): Their research found that each component of the cognitive interview, including recalling events in chronological order, contributed to its overall effectiveness, supporting the technique's use in forensic settings.
CONTRADICTORY FINDINGS
Köhnken et al. (1999): While their meta-analysis confirmed the general effectiveness of the cognitive interview, it also suggested variability across different settings and populations, indicating that chronological recall might not always be effective.
Clifford and George (1996): Their study raised concerns about the potential for increased recall of incorrect information alongside correct information, suggesting that some aspects of the cognitive interview, including the pressure to recall events chronologically, might contribute to memory contamination.
Memon and Higham (1999) Found that the cognitive interview's effectiveness could be influenced by the witness's age, with younger and older adults showing different levels of susceptibility to errors in chronological recall, suggesting that the technique's effectiveness is not uniform across all demographic groups.
Dando, Wilcock, and Milne (2008): Their study on the cognitive interview in real police settings suggested practical difficulties with implementing all its components effectively, including chronological recall. The complexity and time required for proper training and execution were cited as significant barriers.
In summary, while there is substantial support for the cognitive interview's effectiveness, including its use of chronological recall, studies also highlight potential limitations and challenges. These include variability in effectiveness across different contexts and populations, potential for memory contamination, and practical barriers to implementation. The body of research suggests that while the cognitive interview, with its chronological aspect, can be a powerful tool for enhancing eyewitness testimony, its application may need to be adapted based on each case's specific circumstances and needs.
THE COGNITIVE INTERVIEW EVALUATION
Inconsistency in Effectiveness: While some studies support the CI's effectiveness, others have found minimal differences in the amount of information recalled compared to standard interviews, questioning the CI's overall efficacy.
Factors That Might Contribute to Contradictory Findings
Variations in Implementation: How the CI is conducted can vary significantly between studies and practical applications, contributing to inconsistent results. The specific techniques used, the interviewers' training, and the CI protocol's adherence can all impact its effectiveness.
Participant Characteristics: The age, cognitive abilities, and emotional state of witnesses can influence how they respond to different interviewing techniques, including the CI. These factors can lead to variability in the effectiveness of the CI across studies.
Research Settings: Many studies on the CI are conducted in controlled environments, such as laboratories, which may not accurately reflect the complexities and pressures of real-world investigative contexts. This can affect the generalizability of research findings to actual law enforcement practices.
The Cognitive Interview boasts significant real-world applications, particularly within law enforcement. Police forces can leverage this interviewing technique to extract more comprehensive and accurate information from witnesses, which is instrumental in solving crimes more effectively and reducing miscarriages of justice. The ability of the cognitive interview to facilitate the recall of detailed and potentially crucial evidence makes it an invaluable tool in the investigative process, underscoring its importance and utility in enhancing the accuracy of eyewitness testimony and thereby contributing to the fair administration of justice.
POPULATION VALIDITY
An important criticism was that most of the studies involved in Köhnken's meta-analysis consisted of college students and took place within laboratory settings. The age of student participants could be a confounding variable, as research in other studies found that memory recall is affected by age. Therefore, the study may lack internal validity, not accurately measuring the effects of the cognitive interview comprehensively but rather how one interview technique affects a specific age group. This limitation suggests the need for caution when generalising the findings to broader populations, as the effectiveness of the cognitive interview may vary across different age groups.
The participants in cognitive interview research may have been motivated to comply, which does not always indicate real witnesses. This motivation to please researchers or to perform well in a study setting can significantly influence the outcomes of such research. Real witnesses to crimes or events may vary widely in their motivation, cooperation, and emotional states, factors that affect memory recall. This discrepancy between the conditions under which research is conducted and real-world scenarios may impact the generalizability of the findings. As a result, while cognitive interview techniques have shown promise in controlled settings, their application in diverse real-world situations might be limited. Understanding and adjusting for the potential differences in witness motivation and compliance are crucial for accurately assessing the cognitive interview's effectiveness outside the laboratory.
ECOLOGICAL VALIDITY: The laboratory settings for cognitive interviews lack ecological validity, as the consequences of recall in such environments are vastly different from real-world situations where someone's testimony could lead to significant legal outcomes, including the incarceration of individuals. This divergence can significantly affect how participants behave and recall information; knowing that one's testimony could play a crucial role in catching a criminal or affecting the outcome of a trial adds a level of seriousness and stress not present in laboratory settings.
MUNDANE REALISM: Mundane realism is another factor where cognitive laboratory interview falls short. Real crime victims and witnesses often experience high levels of anxiety, stress, or trauma related to the event they witnessed. These emotional states can profoundly affect memory recall, either by enhancing the memory of certain traumatic events or by impairing the recall of peripheral details due to focusing on the most distressing aspects of the experience. In contrast, participants in laboratory studies are typically free from such real-life pressures and emotional states, which can influence the authenticity and applicability of the findings to actual investigative contexts.
Therefore, while cognitive interview techniques are effective in controlled research settings, translating these findings to practical law enforcement applications requires careful consideration of the differences in context, emotional impact, and stakes involved in real-world scenarios. This highlights the need for further research and adaptation of cognitive interview techniques to ensure their effectiveness and reliability in the diverse and often emotionally charged landscape of real criminal investigations.
CONFABULATION VERSUS REAL MEMORY: While the cognitive interview effectively elicits more information from witnesses, it has also been observed to increase the amount of incorrect information provided... This phenomenon highlights a crucial trade-off in the quest for comprehensive eyewitness accounts. The techniques designed to enhance recall—such as asking witnesses to report everything they remember, even if unsure, or to describe the event from multiple perspectives—can inadvertently lead to the incorporation of inaccuracies or the confabulation of details. This is a major limitation as interviewers may not always know what is factual or not as the cognitive interview does not guarantee the accuracy of information recalled.
This increase in incorrect information can be attributed to several factors inherent in memory retrieval. The cognitive interview's emphasis on extensive recall might encourage witnesses to speculate beyond their memories, leading to errors. Additionally, the encouragement to reconstruct events from different perspectives or in varying sequences can sometimes create confusion, causing witnesses to merge or misattribute details.
Understanding this trade-off is crucial for law enforcement and legal professionals who rely on the cognitive interview. It underscores the importance of judicially using this technique, focusing on corroborating the information gathered through additional investigation and evidence. It also highlights the need for continued research and training to refine cognitive interview methods, minimizing the elicitation of incorrect information while maximizing the retrieval of accurate and useful details from witnesses.
YOU CAN’T RECALL WHAT YOU DIDN’T ENCODE
Individuals may not always remember a crime accurately, even if they pay close attention. The complexity of memory formation and recall, particularly under the stress of witnessing a crime, means that attention alone does not guarantee accurate memory encoding. Various factors, such as age, anxiety, weapon focus, or distraction, can interfere with how a memory is initially encoded. If these factors distort or hinder the memory formation process, no cognitive interview technique can rectify what was never properly encoded in the first place.
Viewing a crime from a safe vantage point might suggest that observers could more accurately recall the event, given the reduced threat. However, the accuracy of memory encoding can still be compromised by the observer's emotional state, focus, and external distractions.
When memory encoding is compromised, accurate recall becomes a challenge. In such scenarios, the risk of suggestibility and the influence of leading questions increase as individuals may attempt to fill memory gaps with externally provided information, including suggestions from investigators. This is where the cognitive interview is beneficial. By encouraging witnesses to relax and mentally reconstruct the context of the event,
THE COGNITIVE INTERVIEW AND ITS THEORETICAL UNDERPINNINGS
The Cognitive Interview (CI) closely aligns with key concepts in cognitive psychology, notably retrieval theory and reconstructive memory. These foundational theories offer a compelling rationale for the CI's techniques and effectiveness.
RETRIEVAL THEORY
Retrieval theory emphasises the importance of cues and context in recalling memories. It posits that memories are more readily retrieved when the context at the time of encoding matches the context at the retrieval stage. This principle is integral to the CI through methods such as:
CONTEXT REINSTATEMENT: This technique involves asking witnesses to mentally recreate both the physical and emotional environment of the incident. It is based on the premise that context can trigger specific memories related to the event.
RECONSTRUCTIVE MEMORY
Introduced by Bartlett, reconstructive memory theory proposes that memory recall is an active reconstruction process influenced by an individual's prior knowledge, experiences, and expectations. The CI incorporates this concept through techniques including:
REPORT EVERYTHING: Encouraging witnesses to describe the event in detail, recognising that memory is malleable and that minor details might connect with more significant memories upon recall.
RECALL FROM DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES: This method asks witnesses to recount the event from various viewpoints, utilising the reconstructive nature of memory to access different aspects of the event that might not initially be prominent in the witness's mind.
THEORETICAL JUSTIFICATION
The emphasis on context, detailed reporting, and multiple perspectives within the CI is theoretically justified, aiming to enhance the accuracy and completeness of eyewitness testimony. By engaging the witness's memory more holistically and flexibly, the CI seeks to overcome the limitations inherent in traditional interviewing techniques.
POSSIBLE EXAM QUESTIONS ON IMPROVING THE ACCURACY OF EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY AND THE COGNITIVE INTERVIEW
Outline and explain two techniques used in the cognitive interview (3+3 marks)
Explain how the cognitive interview differs from a standard interview (4 marks)
Discuss the use of the cognitive interview to improve the accuracy of eyewitness testimony and memory (12 marks AS, 16 marks A-level). The specification states: “Improving the accuracy of eye-witness testimony, including using the cognitive interview”. This question may be phrased to ask how to improve eye-witness recall or research into the cognitive interview. I am not convinced this can be a big essay question, but there is just enough theory (AO1) and evaluation (AO2) for it to be a possibility, so I’m not taking the chance. Ao1/Ao2 is covered below in detail - I’ve bullet-pointed Ao1 (so it's clearer for you), but you can write it out as a paragraph.