Differential effectiveness of the cognitive interview in a simulation of testimony

Abstract

The cognitive interview (CI) is a set of forensic evaluation procedures that has proven its efficiency. Nevertheless, little investigation has been made into its usage on witnesses with the intention of lying. With the aim of proving whether the efficiency of the CI is maintained where the witness is lying we carried out two experiments and we included instructions to tell the truth or to lie as independent variables. We used a 2 Type of interview (SI/CI))2 Statement Condition (True/ False))2 Interviewee Gender (Male/Female) design with 18 interviewers in a sample group of 240 gender-matched university students being interviewed and the classic measures from the CI as dependent variables: the total number of details, details of actions, details about people and details concerning objects. In a first experiment, participants who lied exculpated the protagonist of a film fragment from rape, whereas in a second, those who lied accused an innocent protagonist. The results, in accordance with previous studies, showed a globally better efficiency for CI. Nevertheless, analysing the material based on type of details, this efficiency is only found in details concerning actions and objects. We discuss the forensic importance of these findings.

A cognitive approach to lie detection: A meta‐analysis

“…Research has supported this premise. Experimental research to date has revealed four ways to facilitate truth tellers to say more: By using a supportive interviewer (nodding head and smiling during an interview, Mann et al ., ; Shaw, Vrij, Mann, Leal, & Hillman, ), by giving an example of a model answer (a very detailed answer, Bogaard, Meijer, & Vrij, ; Leal, Vrij, Warmelink, Vernham, & Fisher, ) , by using drawings (Vrij, Leal, et al ., ; Vrij, Mann, Leal, & Fisher, ), and by using the cognitive interview technique (Ansarra et al ., ; Bembibre & Higueras, , ; Colwell, Hiscock, & Memon, ; Colwell, Hiscock‐Anisman, Memon, Rachel, & Colwell, ; Colwell, Hiscock‐Anisman, Memon, Taylor, & Prewett, ; Colwell et al ., ; Geiselman, ; Hernandez‐Fernaud & Alonso‐Quecuty, ; Köhnken, Schimossek, Aschermann, & Höfer, ; Memon, Fraser, Colwell, Odinot, & Mastroberardino, ; Morgan, Colwell, & Hazlett, ; Parker & Brown, ; Suckle‐Nelson et al ., ).…”

Facilitating memory‐based lie detection in immediate and delayed interviewing: The role of mnemonics

“…It was found that truth tellers reported more spatial, temporal, and sensory details than did liars, and the difference was largest when the CI was used. In another study, it was found that the CI was more efficient than a standard interview in discriminating between truth tellers and liars when examining actions and objects details (Bembibre & Higueras, ). When the sketch mnemonic was introduced, it was found that a sketch resulted in more pronounced differences between truth tellers and liars than did a verbal recall (Vrij et al, ; Vrij et al, ).…”

Comparative analysis of true or false statements with the source monitoring model and the cognitive interview: special features of the false accusation of innocent people

“…All the interviewers were furthermore informed that the individuals they were going to interview would be looking at different clips taken from different films, so they should not try to establish a version of the original event, but face each person as an 'only witness to the events', as if they were the sole source of information about what they had seen. A complete description of the training carried out, including the interview protocols, can be found in Bembibre and Higueras (2011).…”