What do you think? Any markers? How many would I get for A01, A02 and all togther?
Outline and evaluate the cognitive interview
The cognitive interview was created by Fisher and Gieselman in 1992, the cognitive interview is a memory retrieval technique which aims to bring out more accurate informtation from eye witnesses. It consists of four stages; Report everything: The interviewee is asked to mentally recreate the environment from the original incident including weather conditions and their feelings. Report everything: The interviewee is asked to report every single detail of the incident even if it may seem irrelevant. Changing the order: they're asked to recall the incident in reverse order, this is to stop them relying on their schemas when recalling. Recall from changed perspective: this is where they are asked to imagine they were somewhere else or someone else recalling based on their point of view.
There are a number of studies that demonstrate the postive effectiveness of the cognitive interw; kohnken conducted a meta analysis of 53 studies and found a 34% increase in correct recall using CI compared to the standard interview. This was supported by Geiselman et al who conducted a study to see the effectiveness of the cognitive interview compared to traditional interview techniques. Videos of violent crimes were shown to students where two days later they were either asked to recall using the standard interview or the cognitive interview. The students remembered more items when interviewers used the cognitive interview compared to the standard interview. This study demonstrates that the Cognitive Interview technique is more effective than the normal interview procedures for retrieving accurate testimonies. The cognitive interview, however, involves an in depth exploration of the interviewees experiences which can be stressful or traumatic therefore it is essential that the interviewees are ensured protection from harm; this is an ethical issue. Geiselman's studies were lab experiments therefore they lack ecological validity as the participants are not as emotionally aroused as they would be in real life and the videos do not represent real life situations.
A01: 5/6 or possibly 6/6 well done, if you had extra time could include Fisher adaption which added more components such as active listening, adapting language to eye-witness ect
A02: 3/6 Quite weak you've explained the research ok, although you haven't explained the validity/reliability of the research e.g in Konken what problems are in the method? Labratory? so there low in ecologicial validity but high in internal validity? Giesel also low in ecologicial validity explain why? Videos dont represent real life situations. May of also included research which doesn't support e.g Kebbel survey on British Police Officers.
I thought I would type up an answer that I would give if I were to answer a 16 marker on the cognitive interview.
The cognitive interview was developed by Fisher and Geiselman. It focuses on the basis of psychological research into how memory works. During the interview rapport and understanding is established with the interviewer and the interviewee. They are made to feel relaxed and are encouraged to first report everything.
When reporting everything, this means every detail no matter how irrelevant this information may seem. This works with the idea that other more important cues may be triggered when recalling seemingly trivial ones allowing detectives to gather a wider understanding of what has occurred.
Next, the eyewitness is returned to the context in their mind. This involves imagining the environment of the crime scene and their emotions they felt at the time. Reinstating the context is based on the context-dependent forgetting research which looks at the idea contextual cues can trigger recall.
The eyewitness is then instructed to reverse the chronological order in which the event has occurred in. This may involve either recalling the events from the end and back to the beginning or recalling the events from the middle to the beginning. This prevents people's expectations and biased opinion impacting on their recall. In addition, it prevents dishonesty as it is harder to be untruthful. This, therefore, leads to more insight into the actual event.
Finally, the eyewitness is asked to change their perspective on the incident. They are encouraged to consider how the event would have been perceived through someone else's eyes. This prevents their expectations and schema impacting on their recall. (IF YOU ARE UNAWARE OF WHAT SCHEMA IS IT IS REALLY IMPORTANT TO LOOK THIS UP ON THE INTERNET. SCHEMA IS PACKAGES OF INFORMATION DEVELOPED THROUGH EXPERIENCES. FOR INSTANCE, YOU HAVE YOUR SELF SCHEMA WHICH IS HOW YOU VIEW YOURSELF. E.G. MAYBE YOU SEE YOURSELF AS SHY OR MAYBE CONFIDENT. THEY GENERATE A FRAMEWORK FOR INTERPRETING INFORMATION WHICH MAKES THEM VERY INFLUENTIAL IN CONTROLLING WHAT WOULD SEEM LIKE AN OVERLY OVERWHELMING ENVIRONMENT).
Fisher later went in and developed the enhanced cognitive interview. Here he added in the importance of social dynamics such as, establishing eye contact appropriately. In addition, there was a focus on reducing the eyewitnesses anxiety (THINK ABOUT THE YERKS-DODSON LAW- YOU DO NOT WANT YOUR ANXIETY BEING TOO HIGH AS IT PREVENTS A HIGH PERFORMANCE/ ACCURACY). This can be done by getting the witness to speak slowly and asking open questions. Also, it is important to minimise distractions that could also decrease the accuracy of recall.
A03 on next comment....
One strength of the cognitive interview is that it has very useful practical application. This has been particularly found when using a combination of "report everything" and "context reinstatement". Therefore, if this was to become used within real-life practices (i.e. to improve police interviewing) it can have huge benefits. For instance, this technique leads to an increased likelihood of capturing the correct offender and punishing them for their wrong-doing. This protects society and provides justice for the victims. In addition, to leads to a less likely chance of inaccurate imprisonment and punishment to innocent people, thus hugely impacting their lives. Without this technique, the wrong people may be imprisoned or no one at all.
However, there are difficulties with the application of the cognitive interview. Many different researchers and organisations use the interview differently with different methods. This can, therefore, causes the levels of its effectiveness to fluctuate. Because of the different variations used it makes it really difficult to generalise and establish conclusions. However, the variations could be viewed in a positive light. This is because a real strength of the cognitive interview is its flexibility. This means that it can be adapted to a range of different circumstances and therefore give a great face validity (the degree to which a procedure, especially a psychological test or assessment, appears effective in terms of its stated aims).
Another limitation with used the cognitive interview is that it is time-consuming, thus making it inappropriate to use. Police are reluctant to use the technique because it takes a lot more time to establish rapport and relax the witness. Also, it takes time, not to mention it is very expensive, to provide the specialist training that is required. For many forces, they have been unable to provide more than a few hours of training. A lack of training and money means it is unlikely that the proper version of the cognitive interview is being used, which means that its benefits may be milder or not present at all.
Another limation of the cognitive interview in relation to its reluctance of use is that it has been shown by Kohnken et al to increase the amount of incorrect information by 61%. However, Kohnken also found that there was an 81% increase in correct information reported. Although the amount of false positives limits its use of the cognitive interview this does not mean that it should be abandoned in favour of the use of the standard police interview. Firstly, the fact that it leads to an increase in inaccurate information can be view positively as it shows that there is room for improvement. In addition, the fact that the increase in accurate information outweighs the increase in inaccurate information is another reason to promote its use. After all, the cognitive interview is built around our knowledge of how human memory works, so it is based on a solid foundation of valid research!