Eyewitness Memory Summary
This article on eyewitness memory examined the benefits of cognitive retrieval mnemonics and hypnosis on police interviews. Both the cognitive interview and hypnosis approach elicit a greater number of correct items of information than the standard interview. This was determined after subjects watched police training videos of crime simulations and from previous research.
The most beneficial way to start off interviews is for the eyewitness to report all the details of the event they know. This has been found to be more accurate, but not as complete. I would think that this would be most beneficial because you could guide yourself through the whole event and be able to recall more. When the witness has given all that they remember, the interviewer then asks indefinite questions. Both of these procedures combined reduce the likelihood that interviewers will lead the witness by asking specific questions and distorting memories. I have learned from this class so far that the brain is very malleable, especially in stressful situations.
The article touched on work by Wells about system and estimator variables as well. System variables are controlled by law enforcement and deal with how interviews, lineups, and other police procedures are conducted (Wells et al., 1978). Wells said that system variables need to be fixed in order to better provide for the criminal justice system. Estimator variables are beyond our control and include memories and perceptions of the crime.
Many studies have found that hypnosis does not enhance memory and that eyewitnesses may introduce fabrications into their reports as well as be more susceptible to leading questions and be more likely to view distorted memories as accurate. I can see how this could happen because the hypnotic state of mind is very different from our normal state.
Gieselman developed the cognitive interview. The cognitive interview is a memory retrieval procedure that has witnesses mentally recreate the environment and report everything. Also, the cognitive interviewer has eyewitnesses recount events in different order and from different perspectives. If done right, the cognitive interview is better than both the standard interview and hypnosis.
by MS
The cognitive interview is an interesting proposed method of increasing the amount of accurate information provided by witnesses about a criminal event. Overall, I would agree that the mnemonic techniques outlined and used within the overall cognitive interview are useful for enhancing the retrieval process. The sum of various techniques, if they are effective, will always provide a better method of extracting bits of information from the memory of the eyewitness. The authors make a compelling argument regarding the use of the cognitive interview in lieu of the traditional standard interview commonly used by law enforcement officials. I think that even if it takes longer, this is not a sufficient reason to prevent implementation of the cognitive interview into standard practice. My only concern is that, although the cognitive interview will increase the amount of correct information recalled by a witness, the possibility that incorrect information could surface, warrants a more cautious approach. I know in the article regarding older witnesses and the use of the cognitive interview, incorrect information was also mentioned by the witness during the interview process. There are probably reasonable explanations for this result, yet I am of the opinion that the utmost caution need be exerted in situations in which incorrect information is given by the witness during a manipulation purporting to improve and increase the information held in memory regarding the crime. Incorrect information leads to the wrongful implication and possibly conviction of innocents. Thus, while I think for the most part the cognitive interview would be useful compared to the standard technique, procede with caution, as always, should be the message when dealing with such a sensitive applied issue such as interviewing techniques to extract stored memories which are often malleable and susceptible to various types of information from various sources, especially those whose primary agenda is to find someone based on reports given by witnesses during the course of an interview.
I thought all of the articles focusing on interviewing were interesting. This is an area that seems to get somewhat overlooked when it comes to eyewitness research. A great deal of focus is placed on lineup administration and other research, but this area of research is also very important. I thought that the articles focusing on the cognitive interview technique were very interesting. I hadn’t heard about this type of interview before, so it was good to be able to read about it. Also, a troubling point that the article by Geiselman et al. (1986) brought up was that more than half of police departments had no formal training for new investigators concerning interviewing. I was a little concerned by this fact, but are there more recent findings that show that this trend is changing?
The cognitive interview articles showed that more correct items can be recalled in a more efficient manner than the standard interview. I think this approach might be very helpful for investigators, but in the other article, other information is presented that causes some concern. In the article dealing with older and younger eyewitnesses, the cognitive interview did elicit more correct information, but it also elicited more incorrect information. This finding causes concern, but I still think the cognitive interview has many benefits for investigators and interviewing. I like the four retrieval techniques described in the article, especially the reinstating the context retrieval technique. This technique does make sense in trying to increase retrieval information because it brings back the contextual information.
Overall, all of these articles brought up good ideas. The cognitive interview obviously is an area that may be very important for future interviewing and investigation. The schema article also was interesting because of its application of fuzzy trace theory, which also makes predictions about the differences in memories of children and adults. These findings from fuzzy trace theory also make sense in the context of interviewing and remembering details about crimes.
HC
From the study conducted in the article Enhancement of eyewitness memory with the cognitive by Geiselman, Fisher, MacKinnon and Holland, it seems apparent that the cognitive interview is an effective means of improving the accuracy of one’s recollection of a given event, and importantly doesn’t increase instances of incorrect detail recall. Mnemonics used in the cognitive interview were isolated in the second experiment, and the effectiveness of each mnemonic was noted. While my background in the field isn’t what I would call extensive, this still seems like a significant finding, and if it is accurate, it’s something that could (and should) be applied universally not only when dealing with eyewitness testimony in criminal cases, but whenever detailed, accurate memories are trying to be obtained from individuals. Reinstating the mental and environmental context and stating all observations, even if it’s incomplete or seems trivial, were two mnemonics found to be effective by increasing overlap between encoding and retrieval. When I first noticed the former in the article, I immediately thought of the idea of state-dependent learning, and it seems like this is just an application of that concept. Encouraging retrieval through multiple paths, including recounting events in a variety of orders, and reporting the event through multiple perspectives, also appeared to be effective through the study. I found this interesting, because while this is shown to be accurate, it seems like reporting an event from multiple perspectives would encourage memory creation instead of memory recollection. Apparently this is not the case. I would be interested in knowing what has been revealed in this field since this study was published in 1986, as it seems like the cognitive interview is almost too good to be true.
SB