Ronald P. Fisher

Field Test of the Cognitive Interview: Enhancing the Recollection of Actual Victims and Witnesses of Crime

The Cognitive Interview was tested in the field to enhance the recollection of actual victims and witnesses of crime. The technique is based on laboratory-tested principles of memory retrieval, knowledge representation, and communication. Seven experienced detectives from the Metro-Dade Police Department were trained to use the technique and were compared with 9 untrained detectives. Before and after training, all detectives tape-recorded interviews with victims and witnesses of crime. The trained detectives elicited 47% more information after than before training, and 63% more information than did the untrained detectives. Overall collaboration rates (94%) were extremely high and were equivalent for pre- and posttrained interviews. Because the Cognitive Interview reliably enhances memory and is easily learned and administered, it should be useful for a variety of investigative interviews.

From the Lab to the Police Station A Successful Application of Eyewitness Research

The U.S. Department of Justice released the first national guide for collecting and preserving eyewitness evidence in October 1999. Scientific psychology played a large role in making a case for these procedural guidelines as well as in setting a scientific foundation for the guidelines, and eyewitness researchers directly participated in writing them. The authors describe how eyewitness researchers shaped understanding of eyewitness evidence issues over a long period of time through research and theory on system variables. Additional pressure for guidelines was applied by psychologists through expert testimony that focused on deficiencies in the procedures used to collect the eyewitness evidence. DNA exoneration cases were particularly important in leading U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno to notice the eyewitness literature in psychology and to order the National Institute of Justice to coordinate the development of national guidelines. The authors describe their experience as members of the working group, which included prosecutors, defense lawyers, and law enforcement officers from across the country.

Enhancement of eyewitness memory with the cognitive interview

This research evaluated an innovative interview procedure, the cognitive interview, that was designed to aid eyewitnesses recall the details of crimes. Experiment 1 was conducted to examine the success of the cognitive interview in a nonstudent population. Fifty-one nonstudent volunteers viewed police training films of simulated violent crimes and were questioned individually in interactive interviews 48 hr later by experienced law-enforcement personnel. The cognitive interview elicited significantly more correct information from the subjects than did the standard police interview, and without an accompanying increase in incorrect information or confabulation. Experiment 2 was designed to separate the cognitive interview into its constituent parts and to evaluate the success of each mnemonic. It was concluded that all four general mnemonics contained in the interview (two increasing feature overlap between encoding and retrieval contexts; two encouraging use of many retrieval paths) are useful and should be retained. The cognitive interview is a viable memory-enhancement technique that is effective, efficient, and legally acceptable.

Outsmarting the liars The benefit of asking unanticipated questions

We hypothesised that the responses of pairs of liars would correspond less with each other than would responses of pairs of truth tellers, but only when the responses are given to unanticipated questions. Liars and truth tellers were interviewed individually about having had lunch together in a restaurant. The interviewer asked typical opening questions which we expected the liars to anticipate, followed by questions about spatial and/or temporal information which we expected suspects not to anticipate, and also a request to draw the layout of the restaurant. The results supported the hypothesis, and based on correspondence in responses to the unanticipated questions, up to 80% of liars and truth tellers could be correctly classified, particularly when assessing drawings.

Detecting deception by manipulating cognitive load

Concern with crime and terrorism makes it increasingly important to be able to detect lying. Most lie detection tools used to date are arousal-based protocols. The majority of these protocols are based on the assumption that, because of their fear of being caught, liars will be more aroused when answering key relevant questions (‘Did you steal the money?’) than when answering comparison questions. According to the US National Research Councils well-documented report [1], however, this premise is theoretically weak. Liars do not necessarily reveal more signs of arousal when answering key questions. Conversely, truth tellers might be anxious and hence show signs of arousal when answering key questions.

Facilitating children's eyewitness recall with the revised cognitive interview

Eighty-six 2nd-grade children participated in a Simon says game with an unfamiliar adult. The children were subsequently interviewed twice with either a standard interview or the revised cognitive interview (CI), once within 3 hr of the event and then 2 weeks later. On both the initial interview and the 2-week delayed interview, children receiving the revised CI recalled significantly more correct information than did children receiving a standard interview. In addition, children who were interviewed twice with the revised CI recalled more unique accurate facts (M = 25.44) than children who received 2 standard interviews (M = 16.75). The CI also elicited more inaccurate facts; however, the accuracy rate (proportion of reported facts that were accurate) for the 2 groups was equivalent. The research has implications for police and others who interview real child victims and witnesses.

Tests and test feedback as learning sources

Abstract Two experiments examined the influence of test taking and feedback in promoting learning. Participants were shown a list of trivia facts during an incidental learning task. Some facts were later tested (plus feedback provided), whereas other facts were not presented for further processing. Tested facts were better recalled on a final criterion test than untested facts, showing the beneficial effects of testing. Tested facts were also better recalled than facts that were presented for additional study (Experiment 1). Although testing plus feedback enhanced learning, there were no effects of whether the participants were required simply to repeat the feedback or elaborate it.

Beliefs and data on the relationship between consistency and accuracy of eyewitness testimony

Two studies concerned with consistency and accuracy of eyewitness testimony were conducted. In Study 1 potential jurors indicated the degree to which they considered that various witness on-stand behaviours indicated testimonial accuracy. Witness statements that were inconsistent with previous statements were considered to be the strongest indicators of inaccuracy. Study 2 examined the relationship between consistency and accuracy of testimony. Witnesses viewed a film of a robbery and were interviewed twice (2 weeks apart) about the crime in a 4 (interview format)×2 (interview occasion) design. Regardless of whether consistency was operationalised in terms of direct contradictions between interviews, or degree of agreement on detail across interviews, no more than 10% of the variance in overall accuracy rate was explained by any individual measure. Number of contradictions and overall agreement between interviews did, however, make additive contributions to prediction of overall accuracy. Also, higher correlations between contradiction-based consistency measures and interview two accuracy rate were detected. Neither consistency nor accuracy for specific testimonial dimensions were predictive of accuracy on the other dimensions, or overall accuracy. Copyright

Enhancing Older Adult Eyewitness Memory with the Cognitive Interview

Thirty older (m age=71.73 years) and 20 young adults (m age=21.60 years) viewed a videotape of a simulated crime and were then interviewed with either a Cognitive Interview (CI) or a standard police interview (SI). The older participants were interviewed with either an SI, CI, or CI that was modified for older people (CI–M). No differences were found between the CI and CI–M. The CI elicited more information than the SI, without a reduction in accuracy rate. Moreover, the advantage of the CI over the SI was greater for the older than for the young participants. There were no overall age-related differences. Results are discussed in terms of performance of older witnesses and implications for understanding how the CI functions.

Adult Eyewitness Testimony: Improving eyewitness testimony with the Cognitive Interview

In a comprehensive study of criminal investigation processes, the Rand Corporation (1975) reported that the principal determinant of whether or not a case is solved is the completeness and accuracy of the eyewitnesss account. This official document mirrors the feelings unofficially held by many law enforcement agents (Sanders, 1986). Defense attorneys have made similar claims: The more evidence they can marshal, the better they can defend a client (Visher, 1987). In short, all concerned profit from having more complete and accurate eyewitness evidence. The criminal is more effectively pursued and tried; the innocent person is less likely to be harassed by the police or falsely convicted. Despite the obvious importance of eyewitness evidence, police receive inadequate training in conducting effective interviews with cooperative eyewitnesses (Sanders, 1986). A poll of American police departments revealed that more than half had no formal training whatsoever for newly appointed investigators (Rand Corporation, 1975). A comparable lack of systematic training was found for British police (Cahill & Mingay, 1986). Most textbooks in police science either completely omit the issue of effective interviewing techniques or provide only superficial coverage (although see Flanagan, 1981, and Wells, 1988, for notable exceptions). How do police learn to conduct eyewitness interviews? Typically, they either observe and try to emulate the style of a senior officer or they learn by trial and error. Often they are given a checklist of evidence to be gathered and are left on their own, without guidance, to elicit the information. It should not be surprising that police investigators (and others equally untrained, like attorneys or accident investigators) frequently make avoidable mistakes and fail to elicit potentially valuable information.