Describe and evaluate the cognitive interview as a way of improving the accuracy EWT.
(16 marks).
Geiselman et al (1992) argued that eyewitness testimony can be improved if police use
better techniques when interviewing witnesses. They developed a technique called the
cognitive interviews which is designed be used in police interviews to enhance retrieval of
information from the witness’s memory. The cognitive interview consists of four main
techniques that are used.
Context Reinstatement - The witness should return to the original crime scene in their
‘mind’ and imagine the environment (weather, what they could see) and their emotions
(feelings). This is related to context dependent forgetting as the witness contextualises and
uses emotional cue to retrieve memories.
Report everything- Witnesses are encouraged to include every single detail of the event, this
is as any small detail may be important. This is as one small memory may act as a retrieval
cue for other important memories.
Change order- Events should be recalled in different orders. This reduces people from
reporting their expectations or existing schema of how the event must have happened
influencing recall. It also prevents dishonesty as it harder for people to produce untruthful
account in reverse order.
Change perspective- This is when witnesses should recall the event from other people
perspectives. This is done to prevent the effect of expectations and schemas on recall.
Schemas generate expectation of what would have happened, thus it is the schemas that is
recalled not the event.
A strength of cognitive interviews is that there is research evidence to support that the
cognitive interview is effective. For example, Geiselman (1885) got his participants to watch
a film of a violent crime and after 48hours they were interviewed by a policeman using one
of the three methods: cognitive interview, standard interview, or an interview using
hypnosis. The results from the study showed that the cognitive interview had the highest
average number of correctly recalled facts of 41.2, for hypnosis it was 38.0 and for the
standard interview it was 29.4. Thus, this study supports that cognitive interviews is
effective as participants could recall more relevant information in comparison to the other
methods and it shows cognitive interview lead to better memory for events.
Another strength of cognitive interviews is that there is supporting evidence for it in real
world studies. For example, Fisher et al (1989) got 16 experienced police officers in Miami
and conducted 2 interviews on 47 witnesses/victims of shop lifting or mugging incident. 7
police officers used the cognitive interview and 9 police officers used the standard interview
(control group). The results from the study showed that the cognitive interview gained 47%
more accurate facts. Thus, this study supports that the cognitive interview is useful in
(16 marks).
Geiselman et al (1992) argued that eyewitness testimony can be improved if police use
better techniques when interviewing witnesses. They developed a technique called the
cognitive interviews which is designed be used in police interviews to enhance retrieval of
information from the witness’s memory. The cognitive interview consists of four main
techniques that are used.
Context Reinstatement - The witness should return to the original crime scene in their
‘mind’ and imagine the environment (weather, what they could see) and their emotions
(feelings). This is related to context dependent forgetting as the witness contextualises and
uses emotional cue to retrieve memories.
Report everything- Witnesses are encouraged to include every single detail of the event, this
is as any small detail may be important. This is as one small memory may act as a retrieval
cue for other important memories.
Change order- Events should be recalled in different orders. This reduces people from
reporting their expectations or existing schema of how the event must have happened
influencing recall. It also prevents dishonesty as it harder for people to produce untruthful
account in reverse order.
Change perspective- This is when witnesses should recall the event from other people
perspectives. This is done to prevent the effect of expectations and schemas on recall.
Schemas generate expectation of what would have happened, thus it is the schemas that is
recalled not the event.
A strength of cognitive interviews is that there is research evidence to support that the
cognitive interview is effective. For example, Geiselman (1885) got his participants to watch
a film of a violent crime and after 48hours they were interviewed by a policeman using one
of the three methods: cognitive interview, standard interview, or an interview using
hypnosis. The results from the study showed that the cognitive interview had the highest
average number of correctly recalled facts of 41.2, for hypnosis it was 38.0 and for the
standard interview it was 29.4. Thus, this study supports that cognitive interviews is
effective as participants could recall more relevant information in comparison to the other
methods and it shows cognitive interview lead to better memory for events.
Another strength of cognitive interviews is that there is supporting evidence for it in real
world studies. For example, Fisher et al (1989) got 16 experienced police officers in Miami
and conducted 2 interviews on 47 witnesses/victims of shop lifting or mugging incident. 7
police officers used the cognitive interview and 9 police officers used the standard interview
(control group). The results from the study showed that the cognitive interview gained 47%
more accurate facts. Thus, this study supports that the cognitive interview is useful in
