memory- EWT cognitive interviews

What is the purpose of the Cognitive Interview (CI)?

The CI is designed to increase the accuracy and amount of information recalled by eyewitnesses. It does so by applying principles from cognitive psychology (e.g. cue-dependent retrieval) to structure the interview more effectively than standard police methods.

What is the first stage of the CI and how does it improve recall?

Report everything - Eyewitnesses are encouraged to recall every detail, no matter how small, because minor cues may act as triggers for larger memories (linked to retrieval failure theory).

What is the second stage of the CI and what cognitive principle does it relate to?

Reinstate the context - Witnesses mentally recreate the scene (weather, mood, environment), which reduces context-dependent forgetting by recreating the external retrieval cues present at the time of the event.

What is the third stage of the CI and why is it used?

Change perspective - Witnesses describe the event from another viewpoint (e.g. the victim or a bystander), which helps avoid the influence of schemas that may distort the memory.

What is the fourth stage of the CI and what is its cognitive benefit?

Reverse the order - Witnesses recount events in a different sequence (e.g. backwards), which makes it harder to fabricate stories and helps disrupt schema-driven recall.

What is the Enhanced Cognitive Interview (ECI) and who developed it?

Developed by Fisher et al. (1987), the ECI adds a focus on social dynamics, such as building rapport, managing eye contact, and reducing anxiety, to make witnesses feel more comfortable and open.

✅ 1. Evidence for Improved Accuracy and Effectiveness

Milne and Bull (2002) found that context reinstatement and report everything are the most effective components of the CI. When used together, they significantly improve the amount of accurate recall from eyewitnesses compared to standard interview techniques.

This suggests that partial implementation of the CI can still produce reliable results, which is useful for time-constrained police forces. It also validates the theoretical basis of the CI: memory is cue-dependent, and minor details can act as retrieval cues.

✅ 2. Flexible and Adaptable

The CI can be adapted to suit the context of different crimes and witness types (e.g. children, trauma survivors), making it a versatile tool for police investigations.

The Enhanced CI, developed by Fisher et al. (1987), incorporates social cues like eye contact, open-ended questions, and reducing distractions—techniques which help build rapport and trust, making it especially helpful for vulnerable witnesses or those recalling traumatic events.

❌ 1. Increases Incorrect Recall Too

According to Köhnken et al. (1999), while CI increases correct recall by 81%, it also increases incorrect recall by 61%.

This is a major issue because the primary goal of the CI is to improve the accuracy of eyewitness testimony, not just the quantity.

This suggests that witnesses may feel pressured to give more information, leading to the inclusion of false or misleading memories, which could compromise the integrity of evidence in court.

❌ 2. Time-Consuming and Resource-Intensive

The CI takes much longer than standard police interviews, as each witness must go through multiple stages in detail.

Kebbell and Wagstaff argue that most police departments lack the time and funding to train officers in CI techniques, especially in the Enhanced CI, which requires interpersonal training (e.g. managing anxiety, building rapport).

Consequently, the CI may not be practically feasible in fast-paced investigations or high-crime areas where resources are stretched.

❌ 3. Difficult to Evaluate as a Single Technique

The CI is a complex, multi-faceted procedure, making it hard to pinpoint which element is responsible for improvements in recall.

Studies often evaluate different combinations of the four techniques, which makes it difficult to compare results across research or to standardise the method for everyday police use.

Therefore, it lacks internal validity as a unified psychological tool.