tags: - colorclass/cultivation theory ---## Cognitive Interview Technique
The Cognitive Interview (CI) Technique is a method developed by psychologists Ronald Fisher and Edward Geiselman in the 1980s to enhance the accuracy and completeness of eyewitness testimony. This technique is designed to facilitate the recall of detailed and accurate memories by using principles of cognitive psychology. It is particularly useful in legal contexts where accurate eyewitness accounts are crucial.
Core Principles and Components
The Cognitive Interview Technique consists of several key components aimed at improving memory retrieval:
1. Context Reinstatement 2. Report Everything 3. Recall from Different Perspectives 4. Recall in Different Orders
1. Context Reinstatement
Overview: Encourages the witness to mentally recreate the environment and context in which the event occurred. This includes recalling the sights, sounds, smells, and feelings experienced at the time.
Purpose: Contextual cues can trigger memories that might otherwise be inaccessible, improving the richness and accuracy of the recall.
Example: The interviewer might ask, “Think back to the day of the incident. What were the weather and the environment like? What were you feeling and thinking?“
2. Report Everything
Overview: Witnesses are encouraged to report all details of the event, no matter how trivial or seemingly irrelevant they might appear.
Purpose: Small details might serve as cues to trigger other important memories or could be significant to the investigation.
Example: The interviewer might say, “Please tell me everything you remember about the event, even the smallest details. Don’t leave anything out, even if it seems unimportant.”
3. Recall from Different Perspectives
Overview: Witnesses are asked to recall the event from multiple perspectives, including those of other witnesses or participants.
Purpose: This technique can uncover additional details that might not emerge from the witness’s own perspective alone.
Example: The interviewer might ask, “Can you describe what you think the event would have looked like from another person’s point of view, such as a bystander or another participant?“
4. Recall in Different Orders
Overview: Witnesses are encouraged to recount the event in different chronological orders, such as starting from the end and working backward.
Purpose: This can help disrupt the natural narrative structure that might cause the witness to omit details or introduce inaccuracies.
Example: The interviewer might say, “Can you describe what happened just before the end of the event and then work your way back to the beginning?”
Effectiveness and Empirical Evidence
Fisher, Geiselman, and Amador (1989)
Study Overview: Fisher, Geiselman, and Amador tested the effectiveness of the Cognitive Interview Technique by comparing it to standard police interviewing techniques.
Findings: The study found that the Cognitive Interview Technique produced significantly more accurate and detailed information than standard interviewing methods. Witnesses recalled more relevant details without an increase in incorrect information.
Memon, Meissner, and Fraser (2010)
Study Overview: A meta-analysis by Memon, Meissner, and Fraser evaluated the efficacy of the Cognitive Interview Technique across various studies.
Findings: The analysis confirmed that the Cognitive Interview consistently improved the amount of accurate information recalled by witnesses while maintaining a low level of confabulation (false details).
Advantages
1. Increased Accuracy: The CI technique has been shown to enhance the accuracy and completeness of eyewitness testimony. 2. Reduced Suggestibility: By encouraging witnesses to recall information in their own words, the CI technique minimizes the risk of suggestive questioning and memory distortion. 3. Flexibility: The CI technique can be adapted for different types of witnesses, including children and individuals with cognitive impairments.
Criticisms and Challenges
1. Time-Consuming: The CI technique can be more time-consuming than standard interviewing methods, which can be a limitation in time-pressured investigations. 2. Training Requirements: Effective use of the CI technique requires specialized training for interviewers, which can be resource-intensive. 3. Variable Effectiveness: The effectiveness of the CI technique can vary depending on the skill of the interviewer and the specific context of the interview.
Further Reading
- Fisher, R. P., & Geiselman, R. E. (1992). Memory-enhancing techniques for investigative interviewing: The cognitive interview. Charles C Thomas Publisher. - Memon, A., Meissner, C. A., & Fraser, J. (2010). The cognitive interview: A meta-analytic review and study space analysis of the past 25 years. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 16(4), 340-372. - Fisher, R. P., Geiselman, R. E., & Amador, M. (1989). Field test of the cognitive interview: Enhancing the recollection of actual victims and witnesses of crime. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(5), 722-727. - NIJ Guide - Eyewitness Evidence: A Trainer’s Manual for Law Enforcement
The Cognitive Interview Technique represents a significant advancement in investigative interviewing, leveraging cognitive psychology principles to enhance the accuracy and reliability of eyewitness testimony. Its application can lead to more effective and just outcomes in legal contexts.