The Student Room Group

Cognitive Interview pros and cons

Does anyone know the pros and cons of the cognitive interview in psychology as a way of improving the accuracy of eyewitness testimony?
Reply 1
Hey,

Here you go...

1. A strength of the CI is the amount of research support
A meta-analysis by Kohnken et al. (1999) found an increase of 34% in the amount of correct information generated in the CI compared to the standard interviewing technique.
Although, much of these studies involved volunteer witnesses tested in a lab so may not reflect real-world practices.
This suggests overall CI is an effective technique for increasing the accessibility of stored information, but more real-world studies are needed.

2. A criticism of the CI is that is effectiveness is largely in terms of quantity of information, rather than quality.
The procedure is designed to enhance the quantity of correct recall without compromising the quality.
Kohnken et al. (1991) found an 81% increase of correct information but also a 61% increase of incorrect information when the CI was compared to a standard interview.
This means police need to treat the information collected from Cis with caution. It does not guarantee accuracy.

3. Another criticism of the CI is the amount of time and training needed to implement it.
Police officers suggest this technique requires more time than is often available and that instead they prefer to use deliberate strategies aimed to limit an eyewitness report to the minimum amount of information that the officers feel is necessary.
The CI also requires specialist training and many forces do not have time to provide more than a few hours.
This limitation means the CI in police interviews has not been widespread.

4. Individual differences- The CI may be particularly useful when interviewing older witnesses.
Negative stereotypes about older adults declining memory can make such witnesses overly cautious about reporting information. However, the CI may overcome such difficulties, because it stresses the importance of reporting any detail regardless of its perceived insignificance.
Mello and Fisher compared older and younger adults’ memory of a simulated crime using CI or SI. The CI produces more information than the SI, but significantly, the strength of the CI over the SI was greater for older than younger participants.
This suggests individual differences matter and that the CI is more effective when interviewing older people in comparison to younger people.

Best of luck with your exams :smile:
Reply 2
Original post by emma543
Hey,

Here you go...

1. A strength of the CI is the amount of research support
A meta-analysis by Kohnken et al. (1999) found an increase of 34% in the amount of correct information generated in the CI compared to the standard interviewing technique.
Although, much of these studies involved volunteer witnesses tested in a lab so may not reflect real-world practices.
This suggests overall CI is an effective technique for increasing the accessibility of stored information, but more real-world studies are needed.

2. A criticism of the CI is that is effectiveness is largely in terms of quantity of information, rather than quality.
The procedure is designed to enhance the quantity of correct recall without compromising the quality.
Kohnken et al. (1991) found an 81% increase of correct information but also a 61% increase of incorrect information when the CI was compared to a standard interview.
This means police need to treat the information collected from Cis with caution. It does not guarantee accuracy.

3. Another criticism of the CI is the amount of time and training needed to implement it.
Police officers suggest this technique requires more time than is often available and that instead they prefer to use deliberate strategies aimed to limit an eyewitness report to the minimum amount of information that the officers feel is necessary.
The CI also requires specialist training and many forces do not have time to provide more than a few hours.
This limitation means the CI in police interviews has not been widespread.

4. Individual differences- The CI may be particularly useful when interviewing older witnesses.
Negative stereotypes about older adults declining memory can make such witnesses overly cautious about reporting information. However, the CI may overcome such difficulties, because it stresses the importance of reporting any detail regardless of its perceived insignificance.
Mello and Fisher compared older and younger adults’ memory of a simulated crime using CI or SI. The CI produces more information than the SI, but significantly, the strength of the CI over the SI was greater for older than younger participants.
This suggests individual differences matter and that the CI is more effective when interviewing older people in comparison to younger people.

Best of luck with your exams :smile:

Thank you so much!!

Quick Reply