The Cognitive Interview

What is the cognitive Interview?

A procedure created by Geiselman et al. (1985) as an alternative to the standard interview. It was made to improve the effectiveness of police interviews and the accuracy and completeness of eyewitness testimony.

What are the 4 main techniques used in the cognitive interview (CI)?

1. Report everything

2. Context reinstatement

3. Change perspective

4. Reverse the order

What is ‘Report everything’ in the cognitive interview?

Witnesses are encouraged to include every single detail of the event, even if it seems irrelevant or the witness doesn’t feel confident about it. Seemingly trivial (unimportant) details may be important and, moreover, they may act as cues to trigger other important memories.

What is ‘Context reinstatement’ in the cognitive interview?

The witness should return to the original crime scene ‘in their mind’ and imagine the environment (such as what the weather was like, what they could see) and their emotions (such as whether they were happy or bored). These details can act as a trigger, to help the person recall more information. This is related to context-dependent forgetting.

What is ‘Change perspective’ in the cognitive interview?

Witness should recall the incident from the other people’s perspectives. For example, how it would have appeared to other witnesses or to the perpetrator. This is done to disrupt the effect of expectations and also the effect of schema on recall. The schema you have for a particular setting (such as going to the shop) generates expectations of what would have happened and it’s the schema that is recalled rather than what actually happened.

What is ‘Reverse the order’ in the cognitive interview?

Events should be recalled in a different order from the original sequence, for example, from the final point, back to the beginning or from the middle to the beginning. This is done to prevent people reporting their expectations of how the event must have happened rather than reporting the actual events. It also prevents dishonesty as it’s harder for people to produce an untruthful account if they have to reverse it.

What was the procedure for Geiselman et al (1985) study in terms of the effectiveness of the cognitive interview?

• A sample of 89 students watched a film of a violent crime

• Two days later, the students were interviewed using the standard police interview or the cognitive interview

• The number of correct items recalled and the number of errors were recorded

What were the results for Geiselman et al (1985) study in terms of the effectiveness of the cognitive interview?

The students who were interviewed using the cognitive interview recalled significantly more information than those interviewed using the standard interview. In addition, the number of errors by both groups were similar.

Average number of correct items recalled:

• Cognitive Interview - 41.5

• Standard Interview - 29.3

Average number of incorrect items recalled

• Cognitive Interview - 7.3

• Standard Interview - 6.1

What did Geiselman et al (1985) conclude from their study in terms of the effectiveness of the cognitive interview?

The cognitive interview is effective in improving the quantity of information recalled and doesn’t lead to an increase in incorrect information.

What are the strengths of the cognitive interview?

It has evidence that it works

• A meta-analysis of Kohnken et al (1999) combined data from 55 studies comparing the cognitive interview the standard police interview

• The cognitive interview gave an average of 41% increase in accurate information compared to the standard interview

• Only four studies in the analysis showed no difference between the types of interview

• Shows that the cognitive interview is an effective technique in helping witnesses recall information that’s stored in memory (available) but not immediately accessible

What is a counterpoint to Kohnken et al (1999) finding that the cognitive interview increases the amount of accurate information recalled?

He also found an increase in the amount of inaccurate information recalled by participants. This means the CI may sacrifice quality of EWT (i.e. accuracy) in favour of quantity (i.e. amount of details). Police officers should treat eyewitness evidence from CI with caution.

What are the limitations of the cognitive interview?

Not all of its elements are equally effective or useful

• Milne & Bull (2002) found each CI technique on its own gave more info than a standard police interview

• But the combo of ‘Report Everything’ + ‘Reinstate Context’ produced the best recall overall than any other elements or combinations

• Supports police beliefs that some CI components are more effective than others

• Raises doubts on the credibility (usefulness) of the overall CI

Requires training and investment so it may not always be available because of limited resources

• Police officers’ raised that the full Cognitive Interview (CI) is time-consuming and many officers are reluctant to use it

• It requires extra time to build rapport and help witnesses relax

• It also needs specialist training, but many forces can only give a few hours (Kebbell & Wagstaff, 1997)

• Suggests the full CI is impractical and police may be better focusing on just some elements

How has the cognitive interview led to the development of new interviewing techniques?

• One of the objections to the cognitive interview is that it’s complicated to administer and takes up time that the police may not have

• This has led to the development of the self-administered interview (SAI), a report that a witness can complete independently with instructions to guide them through the process

• This follows the same principles as the CI and can be given to multiple witnesses at the same time, straight after the incident occurs (Memon et al. 2010)

• Suggests the CI can be adapted to reduce the burden on police forces