Cognitive interview

Last updated

The cognitive interview (CI) is a method of interviewing eyewitnesses and victims about what they remember from a crime scene. Using four retrievals, the primary focus of the cognitive interview is to make witnesses and victims of a situation aware of all the events that transpired. The interview aids in minimizing both misinterpretation and the uncertainty that is otherwise seen in the questioning process of traditional police interviews. Cognitive interviews reliably enhance the process of memory retrieval and have been found to elicit memories without generating inaccurate accounts or confabulations. Cognitive interviews are increasingly used in police investigations, and training programs and manuals have been created.

Contents

History

In 1975, the RAND Corporation completed a study on criminal-investigations. The study found that the testimony of an eyewitness was an important determinant in whether the case was solved or not. [1] However, it has been found that many eyewitness reports were unreliable as they could be incomplete, partially constructed and vulnerable to suggestions during the interviewing process. [2] [3] Studies have shown that interviewing techniques such as asking leading questions and closed-ended questions can influence the responses given by the interviewee. [2] [3] Many of the techniques were explored by Elizabeth Loftus, a researcher who studied eyewitness testimony, the misinformation effect, and false memories.[ citation needed ]

Cognitive interviews were developed in 1984 by researchers Geiselman, Fisher and their colleagues in response to the ineffective police interviewing techniques used in the past. Their goal was to suggest methods that increased the accuracies of eyewitness testimony. They found that when participants were trained in memory retrieval techniques, the participants recalled more correct information about an event than occurred on a questionnaire. [4] They based the techniques on four general memory retrieval rules based on the encoding specificity principle, and the assumption that memory traces are usually complex with various kinds of information. [4] In 1985 Geiselman, Fisher and their colleagues MacKinnon and Holland further showed that the cognitive interview had ecological validity by having participants watch videos of simulated violent crimes. [5] The original concept of the cognitive interview was revised in 1987 by Fisher, Geiselman and their colleagues. The revisions to the original cognitive interview incorporated the idea of structuring the interview to be more compatible with how the brain retrieves memories. The revised version of the cognitive interview showed an increase of 45 percent in correct information retrieved. [6] In 1992, Fisher and Geiselman wrote a training manual for investigative services on how to conduct a cognitive interview. [7] The techniques they developed are widely used today by a variety of investigative services such as police departments, private investigators, and attorneys.[ citation needed ]

Memory retrieval

The foundation for the creation of the cognitive interview was rooted in several well researched facts about human memory. Research has shown that memory deteriorates over time. [8] This indicates that the more time that passes between initial encoding and subsequent retrieval the less likely accurate recall will be. [8] This could be a potential issue during a cognitive interview if a large amount of time has elapsed between witnessing the crime and subsequently conducting the interview. It has also been demonstrated that human memory has a limited capacity for storing information, as well as a reconstructive nature. [8] The reconstructive nature of human memory can be demonstrated through the use of schemas; a memory blueprint that provides insight and guidance as to what one might expect from certain events. As a consequence, a witness may incorrectly recall and subsequently report the events of a crime because they are reporting what their schema of a crime is, as opposed to what actually transpired. It has also demonstrated that the recall of information from memory is influenced by the strategies used to gain access to that information. [9] This information has since been integrated in the field of forgetting in eyewitness testimonies. [9]

Theoretical background

Cognitive interviewing is rooted in two cognitive theories: the encoding specificity principle and the multi-component view of memory. The encoding specificity principle was introduced by Endel Tulving. This theory states that cues presented will be more effective in facilitating recall when the cues have some degree of similarity to cues that were present at the time of encoding. [10] Thus, a retrieval environment that effectively reinstates the original environment should enhance memory. [4] This demonstrates that an eyewitness will remember most about an event when there is maximal overlap between the context in which the crime was witnessed and the context in which the recall attempt is made. [5] Based on this principle, an interviewer will receive better results using the first two retrieval rules if they are able to encourage the participant to recreate an overall environment similar to that of the event the participant had witnessed. For example, the interviewer could encourage the witness to recreate their original state (at the time of the crime) during the interview. Past research has demonstrated that memories that have been encoded during a high, emotionally aroused state may be accessible only if the same affect is reinstated during retrieval. The last two retrieval rules are based on the multi-component view of memory which maintains that memory trace is not a linear representation of the original event, but rather is a complex. [4] As a consequence, information about an event can be retrieved using a number of different routes; each of which might provide information about rather different aspects of the original event.

Retrieval rules

The use of the cognitive interview is based on four memory retrieval rules [5] and several supplementary techniques. These rules are referred to as mnemonics.

  1. Mental Reinstatement of Environmental and Personal Contexts: The participant is asked to mentally revisit the to-be-remembered (TBR) event. The interviewer may ask them to form a mental picture of the environment in which they witnessed the event. This picture could include the placement of objects such as windows or furniture, the lighting, or even the temperature. The participant is also asked to revisit their personal mental state during the event and then describe it in detail. The purpose of this process is to increase the feature overlap between initial witnessing and subsequent retrieval contexts. [11]
  2. In-depth Reporting: The interviewer encourages the reporting of every detail, regardless of how peripheral it may seem to the main incident. [5] This step is important for two reasons. First, the participant may only initially report what information they assume to be important regardless of the fact that they are unaware of what information will have value. Second, recalling partial details may lead to subsequent recall of additional relevant information. [11]
  3. Describing the TBR Event in Several Orders: The participant creates a narrative of the TBR event. He or she is then prompted to start the narrative from a point that is different from their initial starting point. This process may provide a new perspective of the event which subsequently provides an opportunity for new information to be recalled.
  4. Reporting the TBR Event from Different Perspectives: The participant is asked to report the event from several different perspectives; like that of another witness or even a participant. If the participant witnessed a robbery, the interviewer may ask ‘What do you think the cashier saw?’ and then ask for the participant’s perspective.
  5. Supplementary Techniques: These techniques are used to elicit specific items from the narrative that the participant provides about what they witnessed. [11] These techniques are questions posed to the interviewee that may jog their memory for details such as physical appearance (‘Did the intruder remind you of anyone you know?’), objects (‘Did they appear to be heavy to carry?’), or speech characteristics (‘Were any unusual words or foreign words used?’). [11]

Each of the four retrieval rules were tested and proved to be useful in the interview process. [12]

The enhanced cognitive interview

The enhanced version of the cognitive interview contains the same four retrieval rules as the original. The enhanced CI includes more social aspects to the interview setting and procedure, which adds a further increase in recall from the original version. [8] The enhanced version also includes several general principles for improving communication between the interviewer and the participant. [8] These recommendations include minimizing any distractions, allowing for a pause between the response and the next question, as well as tailoring the language used to suit the eyewitness. [5] These recommendations allow the interviewer to provide an environment that allows for increased context reinstatement from the participant. [11]

Performing a cognitive interview

Process

Possible setting to perform a cognitive interview Police interrogation room.jpg
Possible setting to perform a cognitive interview

The cognitive interview is carried out in a series of several steps. First, an introduction is made which establishes a relationship between the witness and the interviewer. At this point the interviewer introduces the four retrieval rules to the witness and asks him or her to use these techniques. [13] The interviewer then gives the witness an opportunity to provide an uninterrupted narration of what they saw. During this time, the interviewer is able to construct a strategy for carrying out the remainder of the interview. The interviewer will then guide the witness through several information-rich memory representations, after which the interviewer will assess the witness' recollections. The completion of this last step is followed by the completion of the interview. The interview is formally ended, but with a suggestion that will prolong its functional life. [14] According to Willis, although two-hour interviews are possible the optimal length for a cognitive interview is about an hour. [15]

The effective interviewer

One of the main goals of the interviewer is to maximize memory retrieval from a detailed level of representation and to minimize memory retrieval from the general level. [14] In a study done by Fisher, Geiselman, and Amador several suggestions are provided for the interviewer to use when they feel appropriate in order to maximize memory retrieval. [14]

  1. Based on what is known about the encoding specificity principle, the interviewer should encourage the witness to revisit their state of mind at the time of the event. [14] The interviewer would encourage that the witness think about any external factors (e.g., weather), emotional factors (e.g., feelings of fear), and cognitive factors (e.g., relevant thoughts) that were present. [14]
  2. The interviewer should make every effort to assist the witness to remain in a state of focused concentration because if there is any disruption, the retrieval process will be impaired. [14]
  3. To encourage the witnesses’ participation, the interviewer should use open-ended questions. [16]
  4. The series of events witnessed will be stored differently for each participant. [14] The effective interviewer makes every effort to tailor the interview to each witness. Interviewers should be flexible and alter their approach to meet the needs of each witness rather than use a rigid, uniform style of questioning thereby forcing witnesses to adjust their mental representations to the interviewer's questioning. [14]

Limitations

Though cognitive interviews have been shown to yield many positive results, this technique is not without its limitations. The most commonly cited problem regarding cognitive interviews is that they are more difficult to perform than standard police interviews. [7] [14] Cognitive interviews (CI) are more difficult to conduct than standard interviews (SI) in two main ways:

  1. The CI takes longer to conduct than a standard police interview. [7] [14]
  2. Cognitive interviews are only useful with certain eyewitnesses. [7] [14]

Ultimately, when performing a cognitive interview it is important to develop a rapport and trust between the interviewer and eyewitness to obtain the necessary information. This relationship is integral when conducting a cognitive interview as interrogation tactics often found in standard police interviews are not used.

Dependence on eyewitnesses

The usefulness of cognitive interviews depends upon the presence of eyewitnesses at the scene of a crime. If there are no eyewitnesses or bystanders present during a crime, the use in performing a cognitive interview becomes limited to non-existent. Cognitive interviews are most effective in situations such as robberies or batteries where eyewitnesses are more likely to be present. [7] [14]

Line-up recognition

Research has also demonstrated that cognitive interviews are not generally effective as a form of memory-enhancement with regards to the recognition of suspects in police lineups or photo arrays. Cognitive interviewing can impair an eyewitness's ability to accurately identify a face in comparison to a standard police interview. Though this problem can be resolved by implementing a short delay of as little as 30 minutes, if interviewers are unaware of the need for a delay, the impairment caused by cognitive interviewing strategies could potentially make things unreliable. [17]

Accuracy

Although cognitive interviews aim to increase the amount of information reported from an eyewitness, implementing this method of memory-enhancement does not necessarily guarantee accurate information. During the interview process it is not uncommon for an interviewee to succumb to a social desirability bias. This means that the witness alters their story or response in a way that they feel makes their answer more acceptable in the eyes of the interviewer as well as society. [18] A meta-analysis indicates that accuracy is almost identical to standard interviews. [19]

Children

Despite the fact that cognitive interviewing methods have been modified for use with children, these modifications are not equally effective across all pre-adolescent age groups. Research has demonstrated that the cognitive interview is more successful with older children than with younger children. Studies have shown that younger children have more difficulty adhering to the more advanced components of the cognitive interview. This difficulty could be due to developmental reasons. Another study showed that cognitive interviewing proved to significantly increase the amount of correct information recalled in a group of 7 to 9 year olds, however, this group's amount of confabulation also increased. [18]

Despite the few limitations that may arise, cognitive interviewing as a whole has been an overall successful among interviewers and witnesses of a crime. [20] Another advantage of the cognitive interview aside from its success in enhanced recall is that it can be learned and applied with a minimal amount of training. Several studies of the cognitive interview have provided results that support the effectiveness of this relatively new method of interviewing. The cognitive interview has proven to be a beneficial method for memory enhancement in police officers, children, adults and older adults when recalling the events of a mishap or crime.

Effectiveness in different population segments

Police and interviewing

It has been demonstrated that cognitive interviews to be better than standard interviews. Field tests have shown that police officers trained in cognitive interviewing benefit from gathering more information from witnesses in investigative scenes. [20] One particular study showed that more information (which the study also deemed accurate) is extracted when using cognitive interviews compared to standard police interviews. [21]

Children: Age groups

Child participants have been able to provide interviewers with solid responses, which have proven to be both correct and detailed when given a cognitive interview. Researchers have recently reported that cognitive interviewing leads children to report detailed information that is particularly relevant to police investigations. [22] The children demonstrate correct recall of the criminal, the crime, as well as objects and location in comparison to a controlled police interview. [22] In one study, a modified version of the cognitive interview was deduced to ensure children fully understood the instructions of the interview as well as the questions they were being asked. They were taught to put themselves in another person’s perspective. For example, "Put yourself in the body of _________ and tell me what that person saw,". The children were made aware that they could use "I don't know" as a response. The MCI versions were found to be effective in children. [20] Two additional studies were conducted to examine the effectiveness of the instructions used in both the cognitive interviews and of a new mnemonic, the 'cued recall' (CR), on children’s recall and suggestibility levels. In the first experiment 229 children ages 4–5 and 8-9, participated in a painting session. Afterward they were interviewed with one of the six interview protocols: A full CI, four modified versions of the CI, or a structured interview (SI). The children were then asked misleading questions. Results showed that the full CI and the variations of the CI elicited more correct details than the SI, without association in errors or confabulations, misrepresentation of events. [22] In the second experiment 57 children were tested with a cognitive interview without the change order instruction (CO). The omission of the CO reduced children’s suggestibility level. Results confirmed the effectiveness of this protocol. [22] Moreover, children who were tested using the CI and its four modifications, reported more correct information than children interviewed with the SI at any age. [22] Furthermore, a study done by Geiselman and his fellow researchers found that the CI reduced the negative effects of misinformation when the witnesses were previously interviewed with a CI. This is referred to the Geiselman effect. . [23] Thus, the CI reduces suggestibility if administered before the suggestive interview. [24]

Adults

Research involving adults and the use of the cognitive interview have found that there is accuracy in correct recall of details using the CI . [20] In one successful study, witnesses were asked to draw a detailed sketch of what they witnessed while conversing, which proved to be as effective as asking witnesses to mentally reinstate context. [20] Moreover, the researchers found that witnesses produced fewer confabulations when sketch was used which led to the belief that the witness’s used their own cues to help them remember rather than relying on the interviewer to direct them towards relevant cues. [20] Therefore, cognitive retrieval is effective in enhancing eyewitness memory retrieval in the police interview. [5] Moreover, according to Tulving and Thomson’s encoding specificity principle, context reinstatement increases the availability of memory-stored information and studies have found the connection between the role played by the CI and this principle. [20] Another study sought out to compare the effectiveness of three interview procedures for optimizing witness memory performance. The cognitive interview, hypnosis interview and standard police interview were used. The results found that both cognitive and hypnosis interviews elicited significantly greater numbers of correct items of information than the standard police interview throughout all instances of the study. [5] The results of the cognitive interview closely replicate those obtained by Geiselman et al. (1984), in which participants were interviewed about a classroom intrusion using a structured questionnaire. Again, more correct items of information were generated with the cognitive interview than with the control interview, and without an increase in the number of incorrect items. [5] Thus, the cognitive interview is capable of enhancing eyewitness memory performance both under conditions of experimental control as well as under conditions of high ecological validity. [5]

Older adults

It is important to address the cognitive interview and senior citizens. Seniors are more likely to be active and engaged in the community, as well as more likely to come into contact with law enforcement. [20] Studies have confirmed that older adults benefit even more from the CI than younger adults in providing precise details of an incident. [20] These benefits in more correct details seen in older adult witnesses are reliable with the environmental support hypothesis, which predicts that older adults rely more on and make more effective use of, external support at the time of remembering due to reduced cognitive resources that are needed to initiate their own retrieval strategies. [20]

Related Research Articles

Recall in memory refers to the mental process of retrieval of information from the past. Along with encoding and storage, it is one of the three core processes of memory. There are three main types of recall: free recall, cued recall and serial recall. Psychologists test these forms of recall as a way to study the memory processes of humans and animals. Two main theories of the process of recall are the two-stage theory and the theory of encoding specificity.

Source amnesia is the inability to remember where, when or how previously learned information has been acquired, while retaining the factual knowledge. This branch of amnesia is associated with the malfunctioning of one's explicit memory. It is likely that the disconnect between having the knowledge and remembering the context in which the knowledge was acquired is due to a dissociation between semantic and episodic memory – an individual retains the semantic knowledge, but lacks the episodic knowledge to indicate the context in which the knowledge was gained.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Weapon focus</span> Psychological phenomenon

Weapon focus is the concentration on a weapon by a witness of a crime and the subsequent inability to accurately remember other details of the crime. Weapon focus is a factor that heavily affects the reliability of eyewitness testimony. This effect involves a witness to a crime diverting his or her attention to the weapon the perpetrator is holding, thus causing memory impairments and leaving less attention for other details in the scene, such as the attacker’s face, clothing or vehicle.

Memory has the ability to encode, store and recall information. Memories give an organism the capability to learn and adapt from previous experiences as well as build relationships. Encoding allows a perceived item of use or interest to be converted into a construct that can be stored within the brain and recalled later from long-term memory. Working memory stores information for immediate use or manipulation, which is aided through hooking onto previously archived items already present in the long-term memory of an individual.

In psychology, a false memory is a phenomenon where someone recalls something that did not actually happen or recalls it differently from the way it actually happened. Suggestibility, activation of associated information, the incorporation of misinformation, and source misattribution have been suggested to be several mechanisms underlying a variety of types of false memory.

Eyewitness testimony is the account a bystander or victim gives in the courtroom, describing what that person observed that occurred during the specific incident under investigation. Ideally this recollection of events is detailed; however, this is not always the case. This recollection is used as evidence to show what happened from a witness' point of view. Memory recall has been considered a credible source in the past, but has recently come under attack as forensics can now support psychologists in their claim that memories and individual perceptions can be unreliable, manipulated, and biased. As a result of this, many countries, and states within the United States, are now attempting to make changes in how eyewitness testimony is presented in court. Eyewitness testimony is a specialized focus within cognitive psychology.

In psychology, context-dependent memory is the improved recall of specific episodes or information when the context present at encoding and retrieval are the same. In a simpler manner, "when events are represented in memory, contextual information is stored along with memory targets; the context can therefore cue memories containing that contextual information". One particularly common example of context-dependence at work occurs when an individual has lost an item in an unknown location. Typically, people try to systematically "retrace their steps" to determine all of the possible places where the item might be located. Based on the role that context plays in determining recall, it is not at all surprising that individuals often quite easily discover the lost item upon returning to the correct context. This concept is heavily related to the encoding specificity principle.

Emotion can have a powerful effect on humans and animals. Numerous studies have shown that the most vivid autobiographical memories tend to be of emotional events, which are likely to be recalled more often and with more clarity and detail than neutral events.

Memory conformity, also known as social contagion of memory, is the phenomenon where memories or information reported by others influences an individual and is incorporated into the individual's memory. Memory conformity is a memory error due to both social influences and cognitive mechanisms. Social contamination of false memory can be exemplified in prominent situations involving social interactions, such as eyewitness testimony. Research on memory conformity has revealed that such suggestibility and errors with source monitoring has far reaching consequences, with important legal and social implications. It is one of many social influences on memory, and is sometimes known as the Mandela effect.

Difference due to memory (Dm) indexes differences in neural activity during the study phase of an experiment for items that subsequently are remembered compared to items that are later forgotten. It is mainly discussed as an event-related potential (ERP) effect that appears in studies employing a subsequent memory paradigm, in which ERPs are recorded when a participant is studying a list of materials and trials are sorted as a function of whether they go on to be remembered or not in the test phase. For meaningful study material, such as words or line drawings, items that are subsequently remembered typically elicit a more positive waveform during the study phase. This difference typically occurs in the range of 400–800 milliseconds (ms) and is generally greatest over centro-parietal recording sites, although these characteristics are modulated by many factors.

Memory gaps and errors refer to the incorrect recall, or complete loss, of information in the memory system for a specific detail and/or event. Memory errors may include remembering events that never occurred, or remembering them differently from the way they actually happened. These errors or gaps can occur due to a number of different reasons, including the emotional involvement in the situation, expectations and environmental changes. As the retention interval between encoding and retrieval of the memory lengthens, there is an increase in both the amount that is forgotten, and the likelihood of a memory error occurring.

In psychology, the misattribution of memory or source misattribution is the misidentification of the origin of a memory by the person making the memory recall. Misattribution is likely to occur when individuals are unable to monitor and control the influence of their attitudes, toward their judgments, at the time of retrieval. Misattribution is divided into three components: cryptomnesia, false memories, and source confusion. It was originally noted as one of Daniel Schacter's seven sins of memory.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Childhood memory</span> Early life experiences often memorable for life

Childhood memory refers to memories formed during childhood. Among its other roles, memory functions to guide present behaviour and to predict future outcomes. Memory in childhood is qualitatively and quantitatively different from the memories formed and retrieved in late adolescence and the adult years. Childhood memory research is relatively recent in relation to the study of other types of cognitive processes underpinning behaviour. Understanding the mechanisms by which memories in childhood are encoded and later retrieved has important implications in many areas. Research into childhood memory includes topics such as childhood memory formation and retrieval mechanisms in relation to those in adults, controversies surrounding infantile amnesia and the fact that adults have relatively poor memories of early childhood, the ways in which school environment and family environment influence memory, and the ways in which memory can be improved in childhood to improve overall cognition, performance in school, and well-being, both in childhood and in adulthood.

The encoding specificity principle is the general principle that matching the encoding contexts of information at recall assists in the retrieval of episodic memories. It provides a framework for understanding how the conditions present while encoding information relate to memory and recall of that information.

Eyewitness memory is a person's episodic memory for a crime or other witnessed dramatic event. Eyewitness testimony is often relied upon in the judicial system. It can also refer to an individual's memory for a face, where they are required to remember the face of their perpetrator, for example. However, the accuracy of eyewitness memories is sometimes questioned because there are many factors that can act during encoding and retrieval of the witnessed event which may adversely affect the creation and maintenance of the memory for the event. Experts have found evidence to suggest that eyewitness memory is fallible.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Misinformation effect</span> Recall of episodic memories becoming less accurate because of post-event information

The misinformation effect occurs when a person's recall of episodic memories becomes less accurate because of post-event information. The misinformation effect has been studied since the mid-1970s. Elizabeth Loftus is one of the most influential researchers in the field. One theory is that original information and the misleading information that was presented after the fact become blended together. Another theory is that the misleading information overwrites the original information. Scientists suggest that because the misleading information is the most recent, it is more easily retrieved.

In psychology, confabulation is a memory error consisting of the production of fabricated, distorted, or misinterpreted memories about oneself or the world. It is generally associated with certain types of brain damage or a specific subset of dementias. While still an area of ongoing research, the basal forebrain is implicated in the phenomenon of confabulation. People who confabulate present with incorrect memories ranging from subtle inaccuracies to surreal fabrications, and may include confusion or distortion in the temporal framing of memories. In general, they are very confident about their recollections, even when challenged with contradictory evidence.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Reconstructive memory</span> A theory of memory recall

Reconstructive memory is a theory of memory recall, in which the act of remembering is influenced by various other cognitive processes including perception, imagination, motivation, semantic memory and beliefs, amongst others. People view their memories as being a coherent and truthful account of episodic memory and believe that their perspective is free from an error during recall. However, the reconstructive process of memory recall is subject to distortion by other intervening cognitive functions such as individual perceptions, social influences, and world knowledge, all of which can lead to errors during reconstruction.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Eyewitness memory (child testimony)</span>

An eyewitness testimony is a statement given under oath by a person present at an event who can describe what happened. During circumstances in which a child is a witness to the event, the child can be used to deliver a testimony on the stand. The credibility of a child, however, is often questioned due to their underdeveloped memory capacity and overall brain physiology. Researchers found that eyewitness memory requires high-order memory capacity even for well-developed adult brain. Because a child's brain is not yet fully developed, each child witness must be assessed by the proper authorities to determine their reliability as a witness and whether they are mature enough to accurately recall the event, provide important details and withstand leading questions.

Verbal overshadowing is a phenomenon where giving a verbal description of sensory input impairs formation of memories of that input. This was first reported by Schooler and Engstler-Schooler (1990) where it was shown that the effects can be observed across multiple domains of cognition which are known to rely on non-verbal knowledge and perceptual expertise. One example of this is memory, which has been known to be influenced by language. Seminal work by Carmichael and collaborators (1932) demonstrated that when verbal labels are connected to non-verbal forms during an individual's encoding process, it could potentially bias the way those forms are reproduced. Because of this, memory performance relying on reportable aspects of memory that encode visual forms should be vulnerable to the effects of verbalization.

References

  1. ↑ Rand Corporation. (1975) The criminal investigation process (Vol. 1-3). Rand Corporation Technical Report R-1776-DOJ, R-1777-DOJ, Santa Monica, CA
  2. 1 2 Loftus, E. F. (1975). Leading questions and eyewitness report. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 560-572.
  3. 1 2 Loftus, E. F., Zanni, G. (1975). Eyewitness testimony: The influence of the wording of a question. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 5, 86-88.
  4. 1 2 3 4 Geiselman, R. E., Fisher, R. P., Firstenberg, I. Hutton, L. A., Sullivan, S. J., Avetissain, I. V., Prosk, A. L. (1984). Enhancement of eyewitness memory: An empirical evaluation of the cognitive interview. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 12[1], 74-80.
  5. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Geiselman, R. E., Fisher, R. P., MacKinnon, D. P., & Holland, H. L. (1985). Eyewitness memory enhancement in the police interview: Cognitive retrieval mnemonics versus hypnosis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70[2], 401-412.
  6. ↑ Fisher, R. P., Geiselman, R. E., Raymond, D.S., Jurkevich, L. M., Warhaftig, M. L. (1987). Enhancing enhanced eyewitness memory: Refining the cognitive interview. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 15, 291-297
  7. 1 2 3 4 5 Fisher, R. P., & Geiselman, R. E. (1992). Memory enhancing techniques for investigative interviewing: The cognitive interview. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
  8. 1 2 3 4 5 Memon, Amina; Cronin, Orla; Eaves Memon, Richard; Bull, Richard (1996). "An empirical test of mnemonic components of the cognitive interview". In Davies, Graham; Wilson, Clare; Lloyd-Bostock, Sally; McMurran, Mary (eds.). Psychology, Law, and Criminal Justice. Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyer. pp. 135–145. ISBN   9783110138580.
  9. 1 2 Ornstein, Peter A.; Medlin, Richard A.; Stone, Richard G.; Naus, Barbara P.; Ornstein, Mary J. (July 1985). "Retrieving for rehearsal: An analysis of active rehearsal in children's memory". Developmental Psychology . Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association. 21 (4): 633–641. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.21.4.633.
  10. ↑ Tulving, Endel; Thomson, Donald M. (September 1973). "Encoding specificity and retrieval processes in episodic memory". Psychological Review . Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association. 80 (5): 352–373. doi:10.1037/h0020071. S2CID   14879511.
  11. 1 2 3 4 5 Memon, Amina; Bull, Roy (November 1991). "The cognitive interview: Its origins, empirical support, evaluation and practical implications". Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology. New York City: Wiley. 1 (4): 291–307. doi:10.1002/casp.2450010405.
  12. ↑ Geiselman, R. Edward; Fisher, Ronald P.; MacKinnon, David P.; Holland, Heidi L. (Autumn 1986). "Enhancement of eyewitness memory with the cognitive interview". American Journal of Psychology . Champaign, Illinois: University of Illinois Press. 99 (3): 385–401. doi:10.2307/1422492. JSTOR   1422492.
  13. ↑ Aschermann, Edward; Mantwill, Mona; Kohnken, Gunter (November–December 1991). "An independent replication of the effectiveness of the cognitive interview". Applied Cognitive Psychology. New York City: Wiley. 5 (6): 489–495. doi:10.1002/acp.2350050604.
  14. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Fisher, Ronald P.; Geiselman, R. Edward; Amador, Michael A. (October 1989). "Field test of the cognitive interview: Enhancing the recollection of actual victims and witnesses of crime". Journal of Applied Psychology . Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association. 74 (5): 722–727. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.74.5.722. PMID   2793772.
  15. ↑ Willis, Gordon B. (1999) [Previous version published 1994], Cognitive interviewing: A "how to" guide (PDF), archived from the original (PDF) on 20 July 2011, retrieved 4 April 2011– via Kristianstad University
  16. ↑ Mello, E. W., Fisher, R. P. (1996). Enhancing older adult eyewitness memory with the cognitive interview. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, 403-417.
  17. ↑ Finger, K., Pezdek, K. (1999). The effect of the cognitive interview on face identification accuracy: Release from verbal overshadowing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84[3], 340-348.
  18. 1 2 Memon, A., Wark, L., Bull, R. and Koehnken, G. (1997) Isolating the effects of the cognitive interview techniques. British Journal of Psychology, 88[2], 179-198.
  19. ↑ Köhnken, Günter; Milne, Rebecca; Memon, Amina; Bull, Ray (January 1999). "The cognitive interview: A meta-analysis". Psychology, Crime & Law. 5 (1–2): 3–27. doi:10.1080/10683169908414991. However, the accuracy rates (proportion of correct details relative to the total amount of details reported) were almost identical in both types of interview (85% for the cognitive interview and 82% for standard interviews, respectively).
  20. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Memon, A., Meissner, C. A., & Fraser, J. (2010). The cognitive interview: A meta-analytic review and study space analysis of the past 25 years. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 16[4], 340-372.
  21. ↑ Fisher, R.P., Geiselman, R.E., and Amador, M. (1989). Field test of the cognitive interview: Enhancing the recollection of actual victims and witnesses of crime. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74[5], 722-727.
  22. 1 2 3 4 5 Verkampt, F., and Ginet, M. (2010). Variations of the cognitive interrview: Which one is the most effective in enhancing children’s testimonies? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24, 1279-1296.
  23. ↑ Krackow, E., and Lynn, S. J. (2010). Event report training: An examination of the efficacy of a new intervention to improve children’s eyewitness reports. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24, 868-884.
  24. ↑ Memon. A., Zaragoza, M., Clifford, B. R., and Kidd, L. (2010). Inoculation or antidote? The effects of cognitive interview timing on false memory for forcibly fabricated events. Law Human Behavior, 34, 105-117.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.