The Cognitive Interview – Fisher and Geiselman (1995)

1. Write down ONE example of each: a leading question an open ended question a closed ended question The Cognitive Interview –Fisher and Geiselman (1995) Can I describe the various techniques used in the cognitive interview? Can I describe research studies to provide effective commentary?

2. Why did Fisher and Geiselman develop the CI? This special questioning technique was developed to enhance eyewitness recall– both in quality and quantity. It involved a variety of retrieval strategies, based on what psychologists know about memory. Fisher et al. (1987) studied standard police interviews and Florida and found: • questions were brief, direct and closed • sequencing did not match the witnesses’ own image of the event • police questioners often interrupted, not allowing witnesses to expand on their answers.

3. Cognitive interview techniques Technique Instruction to witness Think yourself back to the scene of the event. What were you feeling, what had you just been doing, what was the weather like, who was standing around…etc? Report everything you can think of – no matter how trivial. It might have a bearing on the event or could trigger a memory of something important. Try to put yourself in the shoes of someone else at the scene. Now describe it from their point of view. Report the details of the event from back to front or start with a particular aspect of the scene and work backwards or forwards from that. 1. Context reinstatement (CR) 2. Report everything (RE) 3. Recall from a changed perspective (CP) 4. Recall from reverse order (RO)

4. Enhanced interview technique Fisher et al. (1987) added some features to the original model: • minimal distractions • active listening • ask open-ended questions • pause after each response • avoid interruption • adapt use of language to suit witness • avoid judgemental comments. 5. Rapport

5. Rationale behind the four elements of the CI • Forgetting is often due to a lack of appropriate cues = cue-dependent forgetting (Tulving and Psotka 1971) • Context is an important cue – Godden and Baddeley(1975) showed that divers could recall lists of words better when they were under water if they had learned to words there in the first place. • We remember things in a predictable order which might cause us to make false assumptions – if you remember someone getting out of a car, you would expect that the next thing to be they turn on the engine. If you reverse the order it prevents the influence of expectations. • Changing the spatial perspective is another route to memory – Anderson and Pichert (1978) asked participants to recall details of a house from the perspective of a burglar or a house buyer. Each perspective led to the recall of additional details.

6. Research Support • Geiselman et al. (1985) Showed participants videos of a simulated crime. They tested recall by cognitive interview, standard interview or hypnosis. The cognitive interview prompted the most information. However, Koehnken et al. (1999) found that it produced more incorrect information than the standard interview.

7. Research Support • Fisher et al. (1990) Trained real detectives to use enhanced cognitive interview with real crime witnesses. They found that CI considerably increased the amount of information recalled compared to SI. The study used real police officers and crime witnesses so lacked artificially of some other studies.

8. Research support • Milne and Bull (2002) Tested each of the cognitive interview techniques singly or in combination. All four techniques used singly produced more information than the SI, but CR with RE the most effective combination. This confirmed beliefs of the UK police that some techniques are more effective than others.

9. Strengths • A meta-analysis of 53 studies have found an increase of 34% in the amount of correct information (Kohnken et at 1999) • Negative stereotypes about older people’s memory can make older adults cautious about reporting information. CI stresses reporting all information – no matter how trivial. Mello and Fisher (1996) compared older men (75) and young men (22) memory of a filmed event using the SI and CI and found an added benefit: advantage of CI over SI was greater for older men. • Stein and Memon (2006) tested CI in Brazil where the SI involves interrogation and torture. Cleaners from large university was shown a video of an abduction. CI produced forensically rich information e.g. a detailed description of the man holding the gun. CI could thus promote humane approach to interviewing witnesses in developing countries.

10. Weaknesses • It is difficult to evaluate because it is not being used in the same way, for example Thames Valley Police do not use ‘change perspective’. • It is time consuming, causing police not to use it. • It requires time consuming and skilful training, which is also not cost effective. (Kebbel and Wagsraff, 1996) • Brief training (4 hours) did not produce any significant increase in the amount of information elicited from witnesses. (Memon et al. 1994) Clarke and Milne (2001) report that it is not being used 83% of witness interviews in England and Whales.

11. In Pairs: • Think back to your first day of secondary school. • Devise a set of questions based on CI techniques. • The aim is to get as much information as you can about the events of that day.