Summary Eyewitness testimony: The cognitive interview 16 marker

✏️Eyewitness testimony: The cognitive
interview
Fisher and Geiselman said that eyewitness testimony could be improved if the police used
psychologically backed techniques. They came up with the cognitive interview, which was based on
cognitive psychology. There are four main elements to the interview.
The first stage is to report everything. Witnesses should report everything they remember even if it
seems insignificant. Smaller memories can also help trigger larger and more important ones.
Witnesses should also be asked to reinstate the context. This means that they should imagine they
are back at the crime scene in their mind, and try and remember the weather, what they could see
and what they could feel. This can help trigger cues which cause memories to be remembered. The
third thing the witness should do is reverse the order. This means telling the police officer what
happened at the crime scene from the end to the beginning. This can stop people from accidentally
talking about things that didn't happen and are based on expectations. This also prevents witnesses
from lying on purpose, as it's harder to lie in reverse. The final thing the participants should try and
do is change their perspective. This means that the witness should try and imagine what another
witness aw from their point of view, or the view of the criminal. This prevents certain expectations
from influencing the witness's story.
The enhanced cognitive interview can be added to this, which involves asking the witnesses to speak
more slowly or asking open ending questions. This can help ease the witness's anxiety, giving a more
detailed answer.

A strength is that there is research support that proves the cognitive interview is effective. A meta-
analysis was carried out which combined 55 studies comparing the cognitive interview, enhanced
cognitive interview and the standard police interview. The cognitive and enhanced cognitive
produced 41% more correct information than the standard interview, with only 4 studies showing no
difference. This shows that the cognitive interview can be effective at helping witnesses recall
information that they couldn't remember.
However, a counterpoint is that the researcher also found an increase in inaccurate information,
especially with the enhanced cognitive interview. This means that police officers need to be careful
about how they treat eyewitness evidence.
A limitation is that some elements of the cognitive interview are more useful than others. Some
researchers have found that the individual components are more helpful than when they are put
together. The researchers also found certain combinations of the cognitive interview produced even
more information, such as combining reporting everything and reinstating the context. This means
that the cognitive interview might not be as accurate as some researchers think, as some of the
elements are less helpful.
Another limitation is that the cognitive interview is time-consuming. The cognitive interview takes
more time than the standard interview because the police officer needs to build a rapport with the
witness and allow them to relax. The cognitive interview also requires specific training, and many
forces don’t have the time or resources to train the officers. This suggests that the cognitive
interview isn't realistic for police officers to use, and it might be better to just focus on some of the
more important and effective parts.