Questioning the acceptability of the Cognitive Interview to improve its use

Abstract

Introduced in the middle of the 1980s, the cognitive interview intended to perfect the techniques of interviewing witnesses and victims of crimes and offences. Since then, numerous international researchers have found an interest in this technique. The major reason for its success within the scientific community is probably due to the scientific basis of its elaboration, referring to various models of memory. Among the potential users-mainly professionals of justice-its use is not systematic, even for those with extensive training. We can then question the adequacy of the cognitive interview in relation to the characteristics of a real forensic interview. First, we will present studies which have shown the utility of the cognitive interview while testing its reliability according to diverse characteristics of the situation of the interview, and according to the characteristics of witnesses. Then, we will question the costs and the compatibility of the cognitive interview with the various phases and objectives of an investigation. Moreover, we will question the usability of the cognitive interview, particularly its learnability, and then propose solutions to improve its usability. Finally, our conclusion will deal with the social acceptability of this interviewing technique by professionals. Questionner l'acceptabilité de l'Entretien cognitif pour améliorer son utilisation RÉSUMÉ L'entretien cognitif est une méthode d'audition des témoins et victimes de crimes et délits qui permet d'obtenir des témoignages plus exhaustifs et aussi exacts que ceux

Evaluating suggestibility to additive and contradictory misinformation following explicit error detection in younger and older adults.

“…Finally, our use of a 3-AFC test is likely similar to many of the direct questioning methods used on eyewitnesses. Although there are many benefits to using free-recall type questioning in forensic settings such as the cognitive interview (Fisher & Geiselman, 1992), we note that this type of questioning is not practiced universally (e.g., Brunel & Py, 2013; Wells, Memon, & Penrod, 2006) and may leave witnesses with tests/questioning procedures that require discrimination of correct and incorrect information like the 3-AFC. Thus, our paradigm shares many similarities with eyewitness events and laboratory-based paradigms and even offers advantages of using names and locations as misinformation which are often critical details.…”

The influence of social instructions on the effectiveness of a cognitive interview used with very young child witnesses

“…More precisely, the improvement in knowledge that results from the training, does not necessarily translate into practice (e.g., Aldridge & Cameron, 1999;Stevenson, Leung, & Cheung, 1992;Warren et al, 1999). In order to explore this issue further and perhaps make the training sessions more efficient, a future direction of research could be to explore the acceptability of the CI techniques (Brunel & Py, 2013), as the acceptability of innovations or of behavioral changes is known to be linked with their application. Thirdly, our hypotheses concerning potential differences between the partial MCIs relied on arguments concerning changes in report criteria.…”

Reducing the Misinformation Effect Through Initial Testing: Take Two Tests and Recall Me in the Morning?

“…This question is important from an applied perspective, given that free recall shares similar characteristics with the cognitive interview used in forensic settings (Fisher & Geiselman, 1992). Asking eyewitnesses to begin their accounts with free recall may thus benefit memory accuracy (Wilford et al, 2014), even though this procedure is not universally used in practice (Brunel & Py, 2013; Wells, Memon, & Penrod, 2006). Finding a PET in free recall would broaden the evidence that initial testing sometimes improves memory accuracy and thus would provide further incentive for studying the application of initial free recall techniques in forensic settings.…”