Download
1 / 23
410 likes | 1.23k Vues
The Cognitive Interview. Importance of witness testimony. In a forensic setting, the role of the witness can be crucial. Witness testimony provides major evidence for investigations ( Farrington & Lambert, 1997; Kebbell & Milne, 1998 ).
E N D
Importance of witness testimony • In a forensic setting, the role of the witness can be crucial. • Witness testimony provides major evidence for investigations(Farrington & Lambert, 1997; Kebbell & Milne, 1998). • Complete and accurate statements from eyewitnesses is the main predictive factor of a crime being solved (Rand, 1975) • EWT therefore can lead to the arrest and conviction of a suspect.
Importance of witness testimony • Although most victims and witnesses try to cooperate, they often have difficulty in recalling details. • Witness recall is not like a video camera. • Accurate and complete recall is difficult to achieve • Asking right questions not enough • Enhancing memory involves active involvement.
Importance of witness testimony • Erroneous eyewitness testimony appears to be the main factor in false convictions (Huff, Rattner & Sagarin, 1996). • The aim is to elicit the most accurate and detailed account of the event possible. • The cognitive approach to interviewing has proven to be an effective approach.
Cognitive Interview in practise In 1991, a Miami woman walking through the lobby of an office building casually noticed two men standing together. Several minutes after her departure, the men murdered a person working in the building. Police investigators determined that the woman was the only person who had observed the two suspects and could possibly describe them. In an initial interview with police, her memory of the men proved disappointingly sketchy…………
The Cognitive Interview Police brought in psychologist Ronald Fisher to help the the witness remember more detail. Fisher's interview consisted of a series of rapport-building and memory-enhancing strategies which produced a breakthrough in the case: the woman reported a clear image of one of the suspects as he brushed the hair from in front of his eyes. She then recalled several details about his profile, including his having worn a silver earring. Thus providing significant leads. Geiselman & Fisher’s technique is now widely adopted across police forces.
CI: no ordinary interview An interview is an interview right? Does the CI really lead to more detailed and accurate recall? What makes the Cognitive interview different from any other police interview?
Background • The CI was first developed in the USA by Geiselman & Fisher (Geiselman et al,1984, Fisher & Geiselman, 1992). • Represented the alliance of two distinct fields of study. (Social & Cognitive) • Provides alternative to forensic hypnosis – evidence from which not admissible in court • CI is a method for eliciting more complete, and more accurate information from witnesses. • It is based on psychological findings about memory and eyewitness performance
Key principles In original form of CI Four principles, or mnemonics, were set out to use in instructions to witnesses: • Mentally reinstate the context of the event. Or thinking about physical surroundings & psychological state. • Report every detail, even if it seems trivial or irrelevant. • Report the event in different temporal orders, moving back and forwards in time. • Describe the event from different points of view or perspectives. (e.g. from view of another bystander or perpetrator)
Reinstate Context • One of the main CI techniques is to mentally reinstate the physical and personal context that existed at the time of the event. • What do we mean by context? • Mood, setting, and experiences the witness felt before, during and after the event.
Reinstate Context • Why? • Memory does not occur in a vacuum. The event was lived through by the witness. • Asking for the recall of a selected part may not produce detailed recall. • Our memory record is heavily influenced by internal thoughts than external environment. • So just as important to recreate feelings.
Report every detail • Another CI technique is to ask witness to report every detail: no matter how fragmentary or seemingly inconsequential. • Why? We often edit our recall and summarise what we feel are the relevant points. However, by doing so we may omit a large amount of detail. • This detail, however can be critical to the investigation.
Changing Temporal order • Initially, retrieval follows a ‘normal’ chronological flow of events. • However, when recounting from ’playback’ we edit memory. • By changing the sequence, witness can focus on each part of the event independently, much like stills in a film. • Reverse or out of order sequence recall discourages ‘filling in’ gaps with memory from schema rather than actual event.
Recall from a different perspective Serves dual purpose: • De-traumatising the event (e.g.describing it from another person’s/ cctv view) • Recall mainly recounted from personal perspective: asking witness to describe event from another physical location enables witness to recall more detail.
Theoretical rationale • Memory complex • Often several triggers or cues may potentially ‘unlock’ what we are trying to recall. • These different cues serve as paths to retrieval: • The more pathways the more likely we are to recall. • Information not accessible by one route may be via with another • State dependant memory
Enhanced cognitive interview • Early controlled studies of the CI suggested it was a valuable tool in eliciting witness recall. • However, in real world witness may experience anxiety & confront more confusion about their role in an interview. • In response to these issues Fisher and Geiselman developed the: • "enhanced cognitive interview"
Enhanced Cognitive Interview • A revised version emphasised 13 basic skills for the interviewer to use • These focused more on what the interviewer should do, • and added to what the original version had advised them to ask the witness to do:
Establishing rapport Listening actively Encouraging spontaneous recall Asking open-ended questions Pausing after responses Avoiding interrupting Requesting detailed descriptions Encouraging intense concentration Encouraging the use of imagery Recreating the original context Adopting the witness’ perspective Asking compatible questions Following the sequence of the CI Interviewer Skills
Evaluation of the CI • Geiselman et al. (1986) compared CI with SI techniques. • 51 participants saw a film of a simulated violent crime and were questioned 2 days later. • Recall compared • CI produced more correct items • No diff in incorrect items • No diff in confabulation
Evaluation of the CI Witnesses instructed to recall event in one of four ways: • Write down as much as they could remember (control condition) • As 1, but also to reinstate the context. • As 1, but also include everything. • All of the above instruction (CI) • Found full Ci produced best results
CI Evaluation: Caveat! • A large number of recent studies (e.g. Mantwill, Koehnken & Aschermann, 1995; Koehnken et al., Gwyer et al., 1995; Memon et al., Bekerian, Dennett, Reeder, Slopper, Saunders & Evans, 1994)have found that the CI generates more correct information at the cost of generating more errors/ confabulated details.
Evaluation of the CI: Training • Fisher et al. (1989) compared the performance of real police detectives before and after CI training • Training increased number of facts elicited
Summary Despite advances in forensic science. The majority of investigations are dependant upon witness testimony. Most victims and witnesses try to cooperate, but often are unable to retrieve vital details. Merely asking the right questions does not suffice; enhancing someone's memory requires active involvement. The cognitive interview has proven more effective than the traditional one by increasing the quality and quantity of information obtained from witnesses and victims. Accordingly, the CI is an essential tool in the forensic setting. It provides an excellent example of how psychological processes can be applied to the legal process.
