Eyewitness memory enhancement in the police interview: Cognitive retrieval mnemonics versus hypnosis.

Abstract

This research compared the effectiveness of three interview procedures for optimizing eyewitness memory performance: (a) the "cognitive interview" based on memory-retrieval mnemonics from current memory theory, (b) the presently controversial hypnosis interview, and (c) the standard (control) police interview. These methods were evaluated empirically in a controlled, yet ecologically valid, laboratory setting. Eighty-nine subjects viewed police training films of simulated violent crimes and were questioned individually in interactive interviews 48 hours later by experienced law-enforcement personnel. Both the cognitive and hypnosis procedures elicited a significantly greater number of correct items of information from the subjects than did the standard interview. This result, which held even for the most critical facts from the films, was most pronounced for crime scenarios in which the density of events was high. The number of incorrect items of information generated did not differ across the three interview conditions. The observed memory enhancement was interpreted in terms of the memory-guidance techniques common to both the cognitive and hypnosis interviews. Neither differential questioning time nor heightened subject or interviewer motivation could explain the results.

Effectiveness of the cognitive interview in a multiple-testing situation

“…Three similar studies (Ascherman, Mantwill, & Koehnken, 1991;Geiselman, Fisher, MacKinnon, & Holland, 1986b;Geiselman, Fisher, Mackinnon, & Holland, 1985) replicated the findings of Geiselman et al (1984 Geiselman et al (1985) also found that even when only critical facts, and not just total facts, were investigated the CI still elicited significantly more correct facts than the standard interview, without eliciting significantly more incorrect facts.…”

Recall, recognition, and confidence patterns in eyewitness testimony

“…Whereas in peripheral information there is a balance between the recall of actions and details, central information is represented basically by actions to the detriment of more particular details, a pattern which is even more marked in the intentional group. One might think that the subjects reconstructed the event by recalling typical actions of the kidnapping script, which would generate errors; however, as in previous studies (Geiselman et al, 1985;Sanders and Chiu, 1988;Yuille and Cutshall, 1986), there were very few errors in central actions.…”

Making the most of information‐gathering interviews with children

“…Mental context reinstatement has also been studied as a key component of the CI that was developed in the early 1980s in an attempt to improve the quality of police interviews with adult witnesses (Geiselman et al, 1984). The primary aims were to increase both the quantity and the quality of information elicited from cooperative witnesses, victims, and suspects (Geiselman et al, 1984;Geiselman, Fisher, MacKinnon, & Holland, 1985. Since then, the CI has been modified for field settings as well as for children.…”